Politics & Stuff

[Fernando 6,534]

  On 16/12/2014 at 23:26, CHOULO19 said:

Don't want to get into a religious debate but don't want to dismiss your question, either. So, to put it simply and briefly: the will to live. That has led to many animals, including humans, to live in communities which has in turn forced the evolution of a set of shared ground rules that govern these communities, namely morals. There's plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that morals (at least the basic transcultural forms of them) are physical aspects of the brain (neurons) whose properties are passed on genetically.

Actually, this is one of the areas of expertise of @Stingray, if I remember correctly. You'd probably get a more detailed and full answer from him.

All this coming from a rock?

I mean that's how everything started for evolutionists?

Rock evolved into something and that something evolved into conscience, and then it evolved into moral standards?

Wow that's something.

Yet still something bothers me, and that something is why do good at all if you come from nothing and go to nothing?

Whatever you do in this live amounts to nothing because your nothing.

No reward or punishment when you go to the grave.

Now if there's a creator then there's some serious repercussions for all of this.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

  On 16/12/2014 at 23:35, Fernando said:

All this coming from a rock?

I mean that's how everything started for evolutionists?

Rock evolved into something and that something evolved into conscience, and then it evolved into moral standards?

Wow that's something.

Yet still something bothers me, and that something is why do good at all if you come from nothing and go to nothing?

Whatever you do in this live amounts to nothing because your nothing.

No reward or punishment when you go to the grave.

Now if there's a creator then there's some serious repercussions for all of this.

Why do bad? Or rather why not do good?

No one lives their lives on a purely logical basis. We are all affected by instincts and biological nature and cultural and social influences so we all want to do good by moral standards.

Think of it this way, if you are convinced that this the only life you'll get then you have everything to live for right now. Would you want to spend your one and only life doing bad? If you have no after life and heaven to go to, wouldn't you want to try your best to turn your current life as close as possible to that idealistic view of life?

[Fernando 6,534]

  On 16/12/2014 at 23:50, CHOULO19 said:

Why do bad? Or rather why not do good?

No one lives their lives on a purely logical basis. We are all affected by instincts and biological nature and cultural and social influences so we all want to do good by moral standards.

Think of it this way, if you are convinced that this the only life you'll get then you have everything to live for right now. Would you want to spend your one and only life doing bad? If you have no after life and heaven to go to, wouldn't you want to try your best to turn your current life as close as possible to that idealistic view of life?

You can view it that way but you can also view it another way.

Hitler was an evolutionists and he believed some races evolved better, hence the superior races.

Not to mention who gave you the knowledge of what's good and bad?

There's no scientific data nor it can proven in a controlled state of environment that you can create morales into an animal,let it a lone extract it from water.

What you define good and evil can be totally different to what another evolved being would classify into it.

There's no reason to modify your behavior to fit into normal society.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

  On 16/12/2014 at 23:56, Fernando said:

You can view it that way but you can also view it another way.

Hitler was an evolutionists and he believed some races evolved better, hence the superior races.

Not to mention who gave you the knowledge of what's good and bad?

There's no scientific data nor it can proven in a controlled state of environment that you can create morales into an animal,let it a lone extract it from water.

What you define good and evil can be totally different to what another evolved being would classify into it.

There's no reason to modify your behavior to fit into normal society.

Hitler was also a Catholic, so that has nothing to do with beliefs. You can twist almost any belief to suite your agenda.

What we call "good" and "bad" (from a moral perspective) are what sustain or destroy a community. Like any other physical evolutionary trait, natural selection decides what's 'good' and what's 'bad'.

You can't create a star in a lab but yet we know for a scientific fact how stars are formed.

The global concepts of 'good' and 'evil' are almost the same anywhere. Forget a bit our modern day of communication and go back 2-3 thousand years and you'll find societies in the east and the west had almost identical views of 'good' and 'evil' even though those societies have never interacted with each other. Various religions of distant cultures have very similar moral codes.

People, even from the same society and background and even beliefs, can have different opinions on 'good' and 'evil' on specific situations because we all have various moral-related and non-moral related urges that often contradict one another. Morality itself is often self-contradictory in complex situations. Morals are ideally 'designed' for very simple social interactions.

[Fernando 6,534]

  On 17/12/2014 at 00:18, CHOULO19 said:

Hitler was also a Catholic, so that has nothing to do with beliefs. You can twist almost any belief to suite your agenda.

What we call "good" and "bad" (from a moral perspective) are what sustain or destroy a community. Like any other physical evolutionary trait, natural selection decides what's 'good' and what's 'bad'.

You can't create a star in a lab but yet we know for a scientific fact how stars are formed.

The global concepts of 'good' and 'evil' are almost the same anywhere. Forget a bit our modern day of communication and go back 2-3 thousand years and you'll find societies in the east and the west had almost identical views of 'good' and 'evil' even though those societies have never interacted with each other. Various religions of distant cultures have very similar moral codes.

People, even from the same society and background and even beliefs, can have different opinions on 'good' and 'evil' on specific situations because we all have various moral-related and non-moral related urges that often contradict one another. Morality itself is often self-contradictory in complex situations. Morals are ideally 'designed' for very simple social interactions.

Wait a second, doesn't evolution teaches that free will doesn't exist?

Then why should someone be held responsible?

And look here's a scientific research from an evolutionists:

postdoctoral researcher, Joshua Greene, who has been studying the biochemical reactions within peoples brains when they are faced with moral decisions.

As a result of his study, Greene has discovered that clusters of neurons in the brain begin to react under an MRI scan when people are making moral judgments. From his perception of this biochemical reaction, Greene hypothesizes that our moral judgments are not based solely upon reason alone but also upon emotion. Furthermore, Greene believes that such responses are the result of millions of years of evolution and that, A lot of our deeply felt moral convictions may be quirks of our evolutionary history.

.........

I ask is he right?

Well as I been debating with you that for an evolutionist, life exists merely as a result of chance mutations occurring within a chemical soup. The same primordial soup that produced human beings produced plant life, animals and all of the seemingly infinite varieties of things which we observe on earth. In such a system, there is indeed no basis for determining value for anything aside from the shifting sands of human opinion. For example, one may believe that sending airplanes into skyscrapers is evil and wrong, and another may believe that it is pleasing to God and correct. But, without a higher moral code than just ones own beliefs, how could anyone be able to say that he or she is right and another individual is wrong? There can be no such universal principles as right or wrong in an evolutionary system as there is no higher authority for such principles than man himself.

Now Greene seems to recognize this problem within his evolutionary framework when he addresses peoples questions concerning morality by stating that it is simply another biochemical process. According to Greene, People sometimes say to me, If everyone believed what you say, the whole world would fall apart. If right and wrong are nothing more than the instinctive firing of neurons, why bother being good?

Disturbing as that question is, Greene still insists that this is what the research indicates. Once you understand someones behavior on a sufficiently mechanical level, its very hard to look at them as evil, he says. You can look at them as dangerous; you can pity them. But evil doesnt exist on a neuronal level.

Hmmm make of that what you will.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

  On 17/12/2014 at 00:40, Fernando said:

Wait a second, doesn't evolution teaches that free will doesn't exist?

Then why should someone be held responsible?

No, there is no direct logical conclusion (that I know of) from evolution about the absence of free will.

  On 17/12/2014 at 00:40, Fernando said:

And look here's a scientific research from an evolutionists:

postdoctoral researcher, Joshua Greene, who has been studying the biochemical reactions within peoples brains when they are faced with moral decisions.
As a result of his study, Greene has discovered that clusters of neurons in the brain begin to react under an MRI scan when people are making moral judgments. From his perception of this biochemical reaction, Greene hypothesizes that our moral judgments are not based solely upon reason alone but also upon emotion. Furthermore, Greene believes that such responses are the result of millions of years of evolution and that, A lot of our deeply felt moral convictions may be quirks of our evolutionary history.
.........
I ask is he right?
Well as I been debating with you that for an evolutionist, life exists merely as a result of chance mutations occurring within a chemical soup. The same primordial soup that produced human beings produced plant life, animals and all of the seemingly infinite varieties of things which we observe on earth. In such a system, there is indeed no basis for determining value for anything aside from the shifting sands of human opinion. For example, one may believe that sending airplanes into skyscrapers is evil and wrong, and another may believe that it is pleasing to God and correct. But, without a higher moral code than just ones own beliefs, how could anyone be able to say that he or she is right and another individual is wrong? There can be no such universal principles as right or wrong in an evolutionary system as there is no higher authority for such principles than man himself.


Now Greene seems to recognize this problem within his evolutionary framework when he addresses peoples questions concerning morality by stating that it is simply another biochemical process. According to Greene, People sometimes say to me, If everyone believed what you say, the whole world would fall apart. If right and wrong are nothing more than the instinctive firing of neurons, why bother being good?
Disturbing as that question is, Greene still insists that this is what the research indicates. Once you understand someones behavior on a sufficiently mechanical level, its very hard to look at them as evil, he says. You can look at them as dangerous; you can pity them. But evil doesnt exist on a neuronal level.

Hmmm make of that what you will.

That's what I meant that you can't apply it any specific situation. Moral principles are pretty common globally. But when you take any specific situation into consideration (obvious the more complicated the more contentious) there will be several morals and non-ethical motivations to take different stances on the matter. It doesn't mean that if two people come to different conclusions that they have different moral principles, they are just applying them different.

In the example of the plane, there is of course the moral urge to not kill and harm the innocent and contradictory to that is the motivation to do what you believe brings 'good' and the best interest of the world and society (obvious that is an over-simplification and I'm not in any attempting to justify 9/11). But if you talk in general and not about any specific situation, anyone in the world would say that lying is in general immoral, but everyone would also tell you that it is sometimes the best solution.

There is nothing to suggest that morals should be coherent and all point to the same direction. In fact, it is very evident that quite the opposite is true. And evolution actually provides a perfect explanation for this. Because the theory states that morals come from different physical mechanisms in the brain that have evolved due to different evolutionary needs and pressures and hence that they contradict in complex issues and in issues that they did evolve to solve is not only normal but a necessity for the theory to be correct.

[Fernando 6,534]

  On 17/12/2014 at 01:01, CHOULO19 said:

No, there is no direct logical conclusion (that I know of) from evolution about the absence of free will.

That's what I meant that you can't apply it any specific situation. Moral principles are pretty common globally. But when you take any specific situation into consideration (obvious the more complicated the more contentious) there will be several morals and non-ethical motivations to take different stances on the matter. It doesn't mean that if two people come to different conclusions that they have different moral principles, they are just applying them different.

In the example of the plane, there is of course the moral urge to not kill and harm the innocent and contradictory to that is the motivation to do what you believe brings 'good' and the best interest of the world and society (obvious that is an over-simplification and I'm not in any attempting to justify 9/11). But if you talk in general and not about any specific situation, anyone in the world would say that lying is in general immoral, but everyone would also tell you that it is sometimes the best solution.

There is nothing to suggest that morals should be coherent and all point to the same direction. In fact, it is very evident that quite the opposite is true. And evolution actually provides a perfect explanation for this. Because the theory states that morals come from different physical mechanisms in the brain that have evolved due to different evolutionary needs and pressures and hence that they contradict in complex issues and in issues that they did evolve to solve is not only normal but a necessity for the theory to be correct.

Like this:

Goering actually said at the Nuremburg trials that the Nazis did nothing wrong according to their own laws, and were on trial only because they lost. Rebutting this, Prosecutor Jackson invoked a universal law. But this only has meaning if there is a Creator/Lawgiver!

Or some other famous evolutionists put it:

Were just here to pass on our selfish genes,

Survival of the fittest

or Life is ultimately all without meaning or purpose Believing that man is nothing more than a cosmic fluke....

They realise that this means that ultimately morality is just something that was put together in the human mind, a product of evolution which has no more real authority over our behaviour than any other activity of the human mind.

Its got no more compulsion (you ought to do this) than anything else thrown up by our brain cells such as immorality! One person thinks that we should not hurt our neighbour; the cannibal though thinks that its OK to eat him. And both of those ideas are nothing more than the result of chemicals fizzing around in our heads. Neither has any real authority, they are ultimately just personal preferences.

Frederich Nietzsche, the famous atheist who said, God is dead, saw that this was where the logic led. He wrote that our moral judgments and evaluations are only images and fantasies based on a physiological process unknown to us.

Richard Dawkins says:

Atheists and humanists tend to define good and bad deeds in terms of the welfare and suffering of others. Murder, torture, and cruelty are bad because they cause people to suffer.

Defining good and bad in terms of welfare and suffering sounds reasonable pretty close to the Christian commandment to love our neighbour. Hurting them is bad, helping them is good. The problems do not come with the second half of Dawkins first sentence, but the first. 'Atheists and humanists tend to define good and bad...'

In fact, theres no reason to read anything that comes after that point. Whether we choose to define good and bad in terms of helping society or in terms of crushing it with an iron fist makes no difference from here. If good and bad are merely what atheists, humanists or anyone else chooses to define them as, then good and bad are merely a product of the human brain. They have no binding moral authority over us, any more than any other mere construction of the human brain has. They might make us happy, but happiness is not the same as righteousness, even a serial killer might feel that he gains happiness from his crimes...

They exist only within our cerebral chemistry, and nowhere outside of it. Like opinions on the best England football XI, or on the finest vintage of South African wine, morality is no more than one of the moveable and ever-moving feasts of human thought.

With no external or transcendent source of values, Richard Dawkins opinion on what is good or bad has no more authority over me or objective basis that should guide me than my preference for classical music over grunge. Both have precisely the same foundation, the ever evolving activities of the human brain. Its just a matter of however I happen to like or want things to be!

Indeed, Dawkins has himself recognized that ultimately evolution leads to a moral vacuum in which [peoples] best impulses have no basis in nature. He scoffs at the idea of righteous indignation and retribution against child murderers and other vile criminals, claiming that it is as irrational as Basil Fawlty beating his car...

To be real, morality must be a matter of authority: you ought or ought not to do this or that. Its very essence depends upon transcendence. That is, something that is bigger than you, and tells you what to do. It cannot be something that is just a part of you or humanity in general: it must be outside of humanity, something over and above us.

Dawkins morality is not morality at all, but personal preference. He prefers to not cause suffering; rapists prefer to maximize their own gratification.

In atheism, theres no ultimate authority we can appeal to in order to determine whose thoughts are better. Both are just human brain activity, without any ultimate reference point by which to evaluate them.

In the end Atheists need to face up to logic: ultimately either nothing is immoral (because there is no God, and thus no such thing as morality) or atheism is itself immoral. There are no coherent alternatives.

[Stingray 9,441]

  On 16/12/2014 at 23:26, CHOULO19 said:

Don't want to get into a religious debate but don't want to dismiss your question, either. So, to put it simply and briefly: the will to live. That has led to many animals, including humans, to live in communities which has in turn forced the evolution of a set of shared ground rules that govern these communities, namely morals. There's plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that morals (at least the basic transcultural forms of them) are physical aspects of the brain (neurons) whose properties are passed on genetically.

Actually, this is one of the areas of expertise of @Stingray, if I remember correctly. You'd probably get a more detailed and full answer from him.

No thanks. I saw the level of misconceptions in his posts. The 19th century is actually over.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

  On 17/12/2014 at 12:45, Fernando said:

Like this:

Goering actually said at the Nuremburg trials that the Nazis did nothing wrong according to their own laws, and were on trial only because they lost. Rebutting this, Prosecutor Jackson invoked a universal law. But this only has meaning if there is a Creator/Lawgiver!

Or some other famous evolutionists put it:

Were just here to pass on our selfish genes,

Survival of the fittest

or Life is ultimately all without meaning or purpose Believing that man is nothing more than a cosmic fluke....

They realise that this means that ultimately morality is just something that was put together in the human mind, a product of evolution which has no more real authority over our behaviour than any other activity of the human mind.

Its got no more compulsion (you ought to do this) than anything else thrown up by our brain cells such as immorality! One person thinks that we should not hurt our neighbour; the cannibal though thinks that its OK to eat him. And both of those ideas are nothing more than the result of chemicals fizzing around in our heads. Neither has any real authority, they are ultimately just personal preferences.

Frederich Nietzsche, the famous atheist who said, God is dead, saw that this was where the logic led. He wrote that our moral judgments and evaluations are only images and fantasies based on a physiological process unknown to us.

Richard Dawkins says:

Atheists and humanists tend to define good and bad deeds in terms of the welfare and suffering of others. Murder, torture, and cruelty are bad because they cause people to suffer.

Defining good and bad in terms of welfare and suffering sounds reasonable pretty close to the Christian commandment to love our neighbour. Hurting them is bad, helping them is good. The problems do not come with the second half of Dawkins first sentence, but the first. 'Atheists and humanists tend to define good and bad...'

In fact, theres no reason to read anything that comes after that point. Whether we choose to define good and bad in terms of helping society or in terms of crushing it with an iron fist makes no difference from here. If good and bad are merely what atheists, humanists or anyone else chooses to define them as, then good and bad are merely a product of the human brain. They have no binding moral authority over us, any more than any other mere construction of the human brain has. They might make us happy, but happiness is not the same as righteousness, even a serial killer might feel that he gains happiness from his crimes...

They exist only within our cerebral chemistry, and nowhere outside of it. Like opinions on the best England football XI, or on the finest vintage of South African wine, morality is no more than one of the moveable and ever-moving feasts of human thought.

With no external or transcendent source of values, Richard Dawkins opinion on what is good or bad has no more authority over me or objective basis that should guide me than my preference for classical music over grunge. Both have precisely the same foundation, the ever evolving activities of the human brain. Its just a matter of however I happen to like or want things to be!

Pretty much spot on until the bold part. There is a very clear distinction between 'instincts' and impulses and conscious thoughts. So, no, morals are NOT anything like the "preference of music". That's a massive misunderstanding (or deliberate ignoring) of how the human brain works. Again, no one, anywhere in the world, would disagree in principle that lying or killing is bad, even if they chose to do it in certain situations where the urges are contradictory.

  On 17/12/2014 at 12:45, Fernando said:

To be real, morality must be a matter of authority: you ought or ought not to do this or that. Its very essence depends upon transcendence. That is, something that is bigger than you, and tells you what to do. It cannot be something that is just a part of you or humanity in general: it must be outside of humanity, something over and above us.

Dawkins morality is not morality at all, but personal preference. He prefers to not cause suffering; rapists prefer to maximize their own gratification.

In atheism, theres no ultimate authority we can appeal to in order to determine whose thoughts are better. Both are just human brain activity, without any ultimate reference point by which to evaluate them.

In the end Atheists need to face up to logic: ultimately either nothing is immoral (because there is no God, and thus no such thing as morality) or atheism is itself immoral. There are no coherent alternatives.

There is absolutely ZERO logical link between this point at the previous points. No, morals don't have to 'transcendent' just like the reasons of why you eat, have sex and run when someone points a gun at you are not. And if they do seem transcendent to us it's because they do not come from the conscious part of our brain and are not, in their simplest forms, beliefs that we can acquire or discard. They are hard-wired into our brains and we are influenced by them even if we can chose to ignore them.

But what you (or the guy who wrote this, if I'm correct to assume that you copied that from somewhere) did give is an insight into why some people feel they 'need' god and it's actually a pretty good argument against what it's advertising. There is absolutely no evidence or need that morals come from above. The need for 'transcendence' there is completely subjective, internal and at best human-related. You are trying to extrapolate the existence of an omnipotent being from the subjective understanding of a word. Basically you/he/she are saying that the reason that god exists is all in my head and he exists because I want him to.

[Fernando 6,534]

  On 17/12/2014 at 18:30, CHOULO19 said:

Pretty much spot on until the bold part. There is a very clear distinction between 'instincts' and impulses and conscious thoughts. So, no, morals are NOT anything like the "preference of music". That's a massive misunderstanding (or deliberate ignoring) of how the human brain works. Again, no one, anywhere in the world, would disagree in principle that lying or killing is bad, even if they chose to do it in certain situations where the urges are contradictory.

There is absolutely ZERO logical link between this point at the previous points. No, morals don't have to 'transcendent' just like the reasons of why you eat, have sex and run when someone points a gun at you are not. And if they do seem transcendent to us it's because they do not come from the conscious part of our brain and are not, in their simplest forms, beliefs that we can acquire or discard. They are hard-wired into our brains and we are influenced by them even if we can chose to ignore them.

But what you (or the guy who wrote this, if I'm correct to assume that you copied that from somewhere) did give is an insight into why some people feel they 'need' god and it's actually a pretty good argument against what it's advertising. There is absolutely no evidence or need that morals come from above. The need for 'transcendence' there is completely subjective, internal and at best human-related. You are trying to extrapolate the existence of an omnipotent being from the subjective understanding of a word. Basically you/he/she are saying that the reason that god exists is all in my head and he exists because I want him to.

But what is bad?

How you come to a conclusion that something is bad?

"Good" and "Bad" are morale decisions that have been injected by a designer.

The hard wire into our brain I discussed that before but I will put it again.

Here's the the article I got it from, the "hard-wired:

Scientists say morality may be hardwired into our brains by evolution

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/apr/whose-life-would-you-save

This article of Discover magazine poses the question, ‘Are Right and Wrong Wired Into Our Brains?’ The article from Joshua Greene has been studying the biochemical reactions within people’s brains when they are faced with moral decisions.

As a result of his study, Greene has discovered that clusters of neurons in the brain begin to react under an MRI scan when people are making moral judgments. From his perception of this biochemical reaction, Greene hypothesizes that our moral judgments are not based solely upon reason alone but also upon emotion. Furthermore, Greene believes that such responses are the result of millions of years of evolution and that, ‘A lot of our deeply felt moral convictions may be quirks of our evolutionary history.’

Is Greene right? As the magazine asks, ‘Are right and wrong wired into our brains?’ The inquiry is a false one. Rather than questioning whether or not evolution has hardwired morality into our brains, the researcher should be questioning how the evolutionary hypothesis can claim anything is right or wrong at all like I just asked you.

For an evolutionist, life exists merely as a result of chance mutations occurring within a chemical ‘soup.’ The same primordial soup that produced human beings produced plant life, animals and all of the seemingly infinite varieties of things which we observe on earth. In such a system, there is indeed no basis for determining value for anything aside from the shifting sands of human opinion. For example, one may believe that sending airplanes into skyscrapers is evil and wrong, and another may believe that it is pleasing to God and correct. But, without a higher moral code than just one’s own beliefs, how could anyone be able to say that he or she is right and another individual is wrong? There can be no such universal principles as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in an evolutionary system as there is no higher authority for such principles than man himself, who is no more valuable than his own opinion would deem him to be.

Greene seems to recognize this problem within his evolutionary framework when he addresses people’s questions concerning morality by stating that it is simply another biochemical process. According to Greene, ‘People sometimes say to me, “If everyone believed what you say, the whole world would fall apart. If right and wrong are nothing more than the instinctive firing of neurons, why bother being good?”’

Disturbing as that question is, Greene still insists that this is what the research indicates. ‘Once you understand someone’s behavior on a sufficiently mechanical level, it’s very hard to look at them as evil,’ he says. ‘You can look at them as dangerous; you can pity them. But evil doesn’t exist on a neuronal level.’

Greene is right. Good and evil cannot possibly exist within a world that defines everything by chance. In his evolutionary belief system, only (fallible) human preference can determine ideals of right and wrong, and such preferences may shift from society to society.

Example: Goering actually said at the Nuremburg trials that the Nazis did nothing wrong according to their own laws, and were on trial only because they lost. Rebutting this, Prosecutor Jackson invoked a universal law. But this only has meaning if there is a Creator/Lawgiver!

Biblical Christians have a much more satisfying and rational point of view.

In the beginning, a holy and immutable (unchanging) God created human beings with a sense of right and wrong built into their very being. This sense of right and wrong is known as God’s moral law. God, the moral lawgiver, also revealed His moral standards more perfectly and directly following creation, by way of the Ten Commandments revealed to the children of Israel and subsequently in the New Testament through Jesus Christ.

[Fulham Broadway 17,092]

This discussion should be in the Philosophy Thread

http://forum.talkchelsea.net/topic/18556-the-philosophy-thread/page-2#entry1001002

[Stingray 9,441]

There is a lot of literature and empirical data on moralist/ethics and theïsme/atheism. So far the data suggests that both categories display very comparable moral reasoning skills (Kohlberg, Gillian, Piaget) as de facto moral behaviours (Pinker, the HRAF anthropology database and many more). Even moral categories/beliefs tend to be very universal (Donald Brown's research on human universals). Also the stage development in children concerning ethics and morality clearly shows a similar path.

So if you like to offer the argument religious people are more moral/ethical, you are only claiming you think your beliefssystem is vastly superior. Enter the Deus Ex Machina.

So ....

[Fulham Broadway 17,092]

Both religion and atheism have arrogant certainty without a shred of evidence.

Agnosticism is best.....

[Stingray 9,441]

  On 17/12/2014 at 19:46, Fulham Broadway said:

Both religion and atheism have arrogant certainty without a shred of evidence.

Agnosticism is best.....

Its an interesting question really: where lies the burden of proof? In the claim a divine superentity exists or the assumption there isn't. Because both cannot be falsified in any way (they are the 'There are no black swans type of unprovable claims), nor verified (except for God showing himself)

Some choose the probabilistic way. They believe (and it IS believing) that it is way more probable there is nothing supernatural there.

I will ask Dawkins, im seeing him next month [emoji16][emoji16][emoji16][emoji16]

[iseah100 5,612]

Have you guys heard of the controversy surrounding the movie "The Interview"? Apparently terrorists threatened theaters if they played the movie. Several major chains, AMC, Regal, Carmike, etc. have all announced they won't show it. James Franco and Seth Rogan have both decided to not do the press tours for the movie. Interesting considering it's from one of the biggest studios in the world, Sony.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

  On 17/12/2014 at 19:36, Fernando said:

But what is bad?

How you come to a conclusion that something is bad?

"Good" and "Bad" are morale decisions that have been injected by a designer.

The hard wire into our brain I discussed that before but I will put it again.

Here's the the article I got it from, the "hard-wired:

Scientists say morality may be hardwired into our brains by evolution

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/apr/whose-life-would-you-save

This article of Discover magazine poses the question, ‘Are Right and Wrong Wired Into Our Brains?’ The article from Joshua Greene has been studying the biochemical reactions within people’s brains when they are faced with moral decisions.

As a result of his study, Greene has discovered that clusters of neurons in the brain begin to react under an MRI scan when people are making moral judgments. From his perception of this biochemical reaction, Greene hypothesizes that our moral judgments are not based solely upon reason alone but also upon emotion. Furthermore, Greene believes that such responses are the result of millions of years of evolution and that, ‘A lot of our deeply felt moral convictions may be quirks of our evolutionary history.’

Is Greene right? As the magazine asks, ‘Are right and wrong wired into our brains?’ The inquiry is a false one. Rather than questioning whether or not evolution has hardwired morality into our brains, the researcher should be questioning how the evolutionary hypothesis can claim anything is right or wrong at all like I just asked you.

For an evolutionist, life exists merely as a result of chance mutations occurring within a chemical ‘soup.’ The same primordial soup that produced human beings produced plant life, animals and all of the seemingly infinite varieties of things which we observe on earth. In such a system, there is indeed no basis for determining value for anything aside from the shifting sands of human opinion. For example, one may believe that sending airplanes into skyscrapers is evil and wrong, and another may believe that it is pleasing to God and correct. But, without a higher moral code than just one’s own beliefs, how could anyone be able to say that he or she is right and another individual is wrong? There can be no such universal principles as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in an evolutionary system as there is no higher authority for such principles than man himself, who is no more valuable than his own opinion would deem him to be.

Greene seems to recognize this problem within his evolutionary framework when he addresses people’s questions concerning morality by stating that it is simply another biochemical process. According to Greene, ‘People sometimes say to me, “If everyone believed what you say, the whole world would fall apart. If right and wrong are nothing more than the instinctive firing of neurons, why bother being good?”’

Disturbing as that question is, Greene still insists that this is what the research indicates. ‘Once you understand someone’s behavior on a sufficiently mechanical level, it’s very hard to look at them as evil,’ he says. ‘You can look at them as dangerous; you can pity them. But evil doesn’t exist on a neuronal level.’

Greene is right. Good and evil cannot possibly exist within a world that defines everything by chance. In his evolutionary belief system, only (fallible) human preference can determine ideals of right and wrong, and such preferences may shift from society to society.

Example: Goering actually said at the Nuremburg trials that the Nazis did nothing wrong according to their own laws, and were on trial only because they lost. Rebutting this, Prosecutor Jackson invoked a universal law. But this only has meaning if there is a Creator/Lawgiver!

Biblical Christians have a much more satisfying and rational point of view.

In the beginning, a holy and immutable (unchanging) God created human beings with a sense of right and wrong built into their very being. This sense of right and wrong is known as God’s moral law. God, the moral lawgiver, also revealed His moral standards more perfectly and directly following creation, by way of the Ten Commandments revealed to the children of Israel and subsequently in the New Testament through Jesus Christ.

Satisfying maybe, but with zero evidence. It would be satisfying if every straight male got to marry a girl like Emma Watson, but it would be deludedly optimistic to believe that everyone will

[Fernando 6,534]

  On 17/12/2014 at 20:31, CHOULO19 said:

Satisfying maybe, but with zero evidence. It would be satisfying if every straight male got to marry a girl like Emma Watson, but it would be deludedly optimistic to believe that everyone will

Zero evidence about god right?

So you rather believe that everything came from nothing....poof things fly away, here and there and magically get arranged in a particular spot?

Earth is put in the right place, the sun is not too big or too small.

The moon is not too big or too small, for that matter not too far or too close.

Then from nothing life came about and helped us formed morale guideline.....

You do realize how that sounds?

And why it baffles me is that someone who believes in this can sit there and tell me what's "right" and "wrong".

If you where made by accident, then your nothing. Your life means nothing.

No, no that's just not right at all, If anything these are evidence of an highly intelligent designer, just like a watch is made by a designer.

That designer made you very complex, made this complex universe into being.

Intelligent design.

Cause if this all happened from nothing, then I wonder if in a few billion years my IWatch will slowly evolved into a Emma Watson look a like...

[iseah100 5,612]

  On 17/12/2014 at 20:31, CHOULO19 said:

Satisfying maybe, but with zero evidence. It would be satisfying if every straight male got to marry a girl like Emma Watson, but it would be deludedly optimistic to believe that everyone will

Only I get to marry Emma Watson. :heart: