• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
3,453
Location
Denver
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
In "The Genesis Solution" Ken Ham says that the Bible (and a literal Genesis) is the foundation for wearing clothes and being against homosexuality (God didn't make "Adam and Steve"). It says that evolution justifies racist views, divorce, abortion, and relativistic morality.

Are you saying that, aside from your religion, you have no reason to be against homosexuality, racism, divorce, and abortion? Unless there's a god, those things aren't wrong?



So promoting Creationism can have moral reasons so that you have a strong foundation when trying to promote Biblical values like being against homosexuality, and men being the spiritual head of the family. So that gives Christians more reasons to support Creation science....

No, that doesn't work.

If you believed that homosexuality was actually wrong (not just magically wrong according to your religion) then you could say that religions which oppose homosexuality are (in that way, at least) good. That would make sense.

But it makes no sense to say, "There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. But some religions oppose homosexuality, so we should support those religions. Otherwise, we'd have no reason to oppose homosexuality -- which would be great, since then we wouldn't have to persecute gays."

That's not a great argument. It's a stay off my side quality argument.

Maybe that illustration isn't clear to people who are prejudiced against homosexuality, so let's put the shoe on the other foot:

Suppose somebody presented you with this argument: "Christianity is fine. There's nothing logical to be said against it. So therefore we should all support Islam. Otherwise, we would have no reason to oppose Christianity."

Would that fly? Would you find that argument persuasive?

You should find it persuasive, because it's the same logic you use when you say that we should believe in the Christian gods because otherwise we'd have no reason to oppose homosexuality.

-

Personally, I see nothing wrong with homosexuality, divorce, and abortion. So you see how your argument strikes me. "Unless you believe in gods, you can't want people trapped in unhappy marriages to have to stay trapped. Unless you believe in gods, you won't want to force people to have children when they don't want to. And, unless you believe in gods, you won't be able to get properly irate about boys kissing. Therefore, you should believe in gods."

That falls flat. It utterly fails.

Racism, on the other hand, is actually bad: It has a strong tendency to increase human misery. So I don't need to believe in gods to oppose racism.

In fact, if you told me that I should believe in goblins so I can be more against racism, I'd think you were out of your tree. What do gods and goblins have to do with morality?

Are you against human trafficking? Would you be more against it if you believed in fairies? Would believing in fairies, and basing your moral arguments on the existence of fairies, help you persuade other people to be against human trafficking?

No, it wouldn't.

Unless you have some actual logical reason to oppose something, you have no reason to want to believe in gods so that you can oppose that thing. And if you do have logical reasons to oppose something, then believing in gods won't help justify your opposition.
 

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
3,453
Location
Denver
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Ken Ham thinks homosexuality is immoral in a similar way that people often think paedophilia is ...

Wonderful example!

Can you actually not see what's wrong with pedophilia? Do you really need to have religion to oppose child abuse?

I love when theists pretend to be moral cretins in the attempt to want us to be like them. William Lane Craig said he doesn't know of anything wrong with rape, aside from the fact that gods told him not to do it.

How is that supposed to appeal? "I want to be like William Lane Craig so that I won't see anything wrong with rape!" "I want to be like Ken Hamm, so that I won't see anything wrong with racism."

That argument is so flawed it's delicious.
 

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
3,453
Location
Denver
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Morality based on "God's word" theoretically has an absolute foundation while "anything goes" if you base it on man's opinions.

That's a bald claim, unsupportable.

What if I said that morality based on logic is objective, but moralities based on the opinions of various gods are inherently subjective? Wouldn't that argument be at least as strong as yours?

And if morality really were based on the words of gods, that's when we'd have a case of anything goes. "Regardless of logic or consequences, anything that god says goes."
 

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
3,453
Location
Denver
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that A) God exists, and that B) he's deeply concerned about the morality of humans, and thus C) there is such a thing as "Objective Morality" ...

Theists love to assume that C derives from A and B, but they can never explain how that's supposed to happen.
 

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
3,453
Location
Denver
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Ken Ham might say that the ten commandments should be followed because they are from God, and whether they are seen by sinful humans as "good" or original is irrelevant.

So we should believe in gods in order to be able to follow rules that we think are bad? How does that make sense?
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Morality based on "God's word" theoretically has an absolute foundation while "anything goes" if you base it on man's opinions.

That's a bald claim, unsupportable.

What if I said that morality based on logic is objective, but moralities based on the opinions of various gods are inherently subjective? Wouldn't that argument be at least as strong as yours?

And if morality really were based on the words of gods, that's when we'd have a case of anything goes. "Regardless of logic or consequences, anything that god says goes."

And it's not morality.
You don't know WHY homosexuality or rape is wrong, it's just on The List. Like nudity, and crabs. Flat roofs. Oysters. Gossip.
If you encountr something not on The List, you do not have an absolute moral basis for deciding if it's wrong. You have no basis.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,023
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Morality based on "God's word" theoretically has an absolute foundation while "anything goes" if you base it on man's opinions.

That's a bald claim, unsupportable.

What if I said that morality based on logic is objective, but moralities based on the opinions of various gods are inherently subjective? Wouldn't that argument be at least as strong as yours?

And if morality really were based on the words of gods, that's when we'd have a case of anything goes. "Regardless of logic or consequences, anything that god says goes."

And it's not morality.
You don't know WHY homosexuality or rape is wrong, it's just on The List. Like nudity, and crabs. Flat roofs. Oysters. Gossip.
If you encountr something not on The List, you do not have an absolute moral basis for deciding if it's wrong. You have no basis.

That's because many theists see obedience to their god as moral. Why would anyone who considers himself moral wish to be obedient to a genocidal god? That's right. it's because all those victims were sinners and deserved to be murdered. Got it. Quite the morality.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,310
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The whole point of the game of life is to show how evolution works (without the need of a God). The rules just simulate the natural mechanics of evolution. So you couldn't possibly have used a worse example to prove acts of God in the world.
In the game of life the initial conditions are usually intelligently designed. If they are random it behaves randomly then usually gets stuck
e.g.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzMQY9Etb4Q[/YOUTUBE]

If intelligently designed it can involve the game of life simulating the game of life (see post #195) - an intelligent designer can take advantage of their knowledge of still lifes, oscillators, and spaceships....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

I'm not aware of evolution simulating/emulating itself (like that example of the game of life emulating the game of life)

Perhaps the game of life could also be about chemistry and machines/factories like living cells.... (random vs purposeful machine-like structures) I think it is about "emergence"...

When you play the game if life you can set the parameters to whatever you want and press play. That's its purpose. It's an evolutionary mathematical laboratory.

The game of life is from a time when computers weren't powerful. Today we simulate all kinds of stuff. Blue mouse simulates a mouse brain. The fieid of evolutionary design uses these kinds of programmes to build real life objects in industry.

Science has already done what you asked for thousand times over.

https://playgameoflife.com/
Have fun!
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,310
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Ken Ham thinks homosexuality is immoral in a similar way that people often think paedophilia is ...

Wonderful example!

Can you actually not see what's wrong with pedophilia? Do you really need to have religion to oppose child abuse?

I love when theists pretend to be moral cretins in the attempt to want us to be like them. William Lane Craig said he doesn't know of anything wrong with rape, aside from the fact that gods told him not to do it.

How is that supposed to appeal? "I want to be like William Lane Craig so that I won't see anything wrong with rape!" "I want to be like Ken Hamm, so that I won't see anything wrong with racism."

That argument is so flawed it's delicious.

They're also implicitly saying that they are pedophiles. Since the only thing preventing them from raping children is the Bible. Only a pedophile would if they could
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
In "The Genesis Solution" Ken Ham says that the Bible (and a literal Genesis) is the foundation for wearing clothes and being against homosexuality (God didn't make "Adam and Steve"). It says that evolution justifies racist views, divorce, abortion, and relativistic morality.
Are you saying that, aside from your religion, you have no reason to be against homosexuality, racism, divorce, and abortion? Unless there's a god, those things aren't wrong?
Ken Ham is saying that without the foundation of Biblical literalism and with a foundation of evolution it is up to you to decide though a belief in evolution could make things like abortion seem ok since it could be argued that it is just some tissue or an animal rather than a human life. Though I guess it is possible an atheistic "evolutionist" could be completely against abortion.

Morality based on "God's word" theoretically has an absolute foundation while "anything goes" if you base it on man's opinions.

That's a bald claim, unsupportable.

What if I said that morality based on logic is objective, but moralities based on the opinions of various gods are inherently subjective? Wouldn't that argument be at least as strong as yours?

And if morality really were based on the words of gods, that's when we'd have a case of anything goes. "Regardless of logic or consequences, anything that god says goes."
From post #11:
If you believe in creation what does that mean? Doesn't it mean there's a creator? The creator owns you, he sets the rules. It means we are to be in total submission to him. He is the absolute authority. He sets what's right and what's wrong. He has a right to do that because he owns us, because he created us. On the other hand if you believe you're a product of chance random processes who owns you? You do. Who sets the rules? You do. Who decides what's right and what's wrong? You do.

Do you have an example of objective morality based on logic? I mean a whole system of morality - not just saying that murder is wrong.

I didn't respond to most of your points because I'm not a supporter of Ken Ham though I can see his point of view and I think he is quite influential.
 
Last edited:

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,310
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
When you play the game if life you can set the parameters to whatever you want and press play. That's its purpose. It's an evolutionary mathematical laboratory.
.....
https://playgameoflife.com/
Have fun!
The lexicon is almost like a field of science in itself.

Despite it's name it's not an actual game. It's a science experiment. It's called a game because it uses the mathematical branch "game theory" as it's mathematical basis. Yes, the lexicon is a field of science in itself. It literally is.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
They're also implicitly saying that they are pedophiles. Since the only thing preventing them from raping children is the Bible. Only a pedophile would if they could
I think the Bible is only explicitly against the rape of a female and men having sex with men.... (it isn't clear about men having sex with boys)
A related quote:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9679681-i-have-found-nice-guys-to-be-prone-to-hidden
Dr Glover - No More Mr. Nice Guy
“I have found Nice Guys to be prone to hidden, compulsive sexual behavior. I have developed a theory that states, the nicer the guy, the darker the sexual secrets. I find this to be consistently true. Sex is a basic human drive. Because most Nice Guys believe they are bad for being sexual, or believe that other people will think they are bad, sexual impulses have to be kept hidden from view.”
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,310
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
They're also implicitly saying that they are pedophiles. Since the only thing preventing them from raping children is the Bible. Only a pedophile would if they could
I think the Bible is only explicitly against the rape of a female and men having sex with men.... (it isn't clear about men having sex with boys)
A related quote:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9679681-i-have-found-nice-guys-to-be-prone-to-hidden
Dr Glover - No More Mr. Nice Guy
“I have found Nice Guys to be prone to hidden, compulsive sexual behavior. I have developed a theory that states, the nicer the guy, the darker the sexual secrets. I find this to be consistently true. Sex is a basic human drive. Because most Nice Guys believe they are bad for being sexual, or believe that other people will think they are bad, sexual impulses have to be kept hidden from view.”

Unless you have 30 pieces of silver. Then you can rape as much as you want. Until you are out of silver.

The command against gay sex, I think should be interpreted as an anti-Greek commandment. When Judea was taken by the Helenistic Selucid empire under the king Antiochus, their attempt to impose Greek religion onto the Jews was quite heavy handed. They forced the Jews to erect a statue of Dionysus in the temple of David in Jerusalem as well as partaking in pagan rituals. It didn't go over well. So any cultural practice that was identified as specifically Greek became taboo within Judaism.

As I'm sure you know, Greeks had a peculiar cultural practice of pederasty. Where all young boys were systematically and ritually raped by men above 40. This was, even by ancient standards, considered bizarre. Before the Seluicid conquest Jews had no problems with homosexuality, and pagans in general were very cool about gay sex. After the Helenistic rule gay sex became taboo. I think you can replace anything in the Bible against gay sex as instead being about being against culturally insensitive foreign conquerors forcing strange practices upon their ruled people.

In order to understand the Bible you need A LOT of context.

When the Persians ruled Judea, they were about as strange as the Greeks, but they didn't force any of their cultural practices on the Jews. As a result the Bible has nothing but praise for the Persian rulers.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
I think the Bible is only explicitly against the rape of a female....
Unless you have 30 pieces of silver. Then you can rape as much as you want. Until you are out of silver.
Related verses:
Deuteronomy 22:23-29
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

So the moral of the story is if you have to rape a woman make sure she is a virgin who isn't engaged. And since you can't divorce her make sure she is the right one for you. Though I guess you could marry multiple women using this method. And if you don't get discovered you don't need to pay that fee.
....As I'm sure you know, Greeks had a peculiar cultural practice of pederasty. Where all young boys were systematically and ritually raped by men above 40...
Actually I wasn't aware of that. BTW apparently Greeks in the early church caused the church to adopt the Greek belief in the immortality of the soul:
https://www.jewishnotgreek.com/
Maybe pederasty in priests involved Greek influence....
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,310
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Related verses:
Deuteronomy 22:23-29
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

But he was also allowed to have several wives. The one man one woman rule came a lot later.

Again, context is very important :)

So the moral of the story is if you have to rape a woman make sure she is a virgin who isn't engaged. And since you can't divorce her make sure she is the right one for you. Though I guess you could marry multiple women using this method. And if you don't get discovered you don't need to pay that fee.
....As I'm sure you know, Greeks had a peculiar cultural practice of pederasty. Where all young boys were systematically and ritually raped by men above 40...
Actually I wasn't aware of that. BTW apparently Greeks in the early church caused the church to adopt the Greek belief in the immortality of the soul:
https://www.jewishnotgreek.com/
Maybe pederasty in priests involved Greek influence....

You're making the mistake of equating Platonism with Greek. While Platonism was a thing during the period the Selucid's ruled Judea. Platonism didn't become a widespread belief until the rise of Neoplatonism 250 BC. Which is well after this period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism

The idea of immortal souls is also probably not Plato's invention either. Both the ancient Egyptians and the Zoroastrians believed in immortal souls. Either or both of these could have been the source for Plato.

The article is correct though that neoplatonism is a huge influence on what later became Christianity. All the three Greek philosophical schools Neoplatonism, Epicureanism and Stoicism had a massive influence on Christianity. To a point where it's fair to say that those are the core to Christianity and all they got from Judaism is the monotheism, the mythic stories, and the fetishisation of books.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
But he was also allowed to have several wives. The one man one woman rule came a lot later....
Yeah in the OT a large number of the main men had multiple wives (or concubines). Perhaps the one woman limit was inherited from the Roman culture [my own thoughts]. (and then Ken Ham says that the one woman rule started with Adam and Eve).
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
.....The article is correct though that neoplatonism is a huge influence on what later became Christianity. All the three Greek philosophical schools Neoplatonism, Epicureanism and Stoicism had a massive influence on Christianity. To a point where it's fair to say that those are the core to Christianity and all they got from Judaism is the monotheism, the mythic stories, and the fetishisation of books.
What do you think of this excerpt from "Hell and Mr Fudge"? It is about a person who was paid to research the doctrine of hell for a year.... this excerpt talks about Tertullian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W66HP-3HO_A&t=4882s
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,310
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
But he was also allowed to have several wives. The one man one woman rule came a lot later....
Yeah in the OT a large number of the main men had multiple wives (or concubines). Perhaps the one woman limit was inherited from the Roman culture [my own thoughts]. (and then Ken Ham says that the one woman rule started with Adam and Eve).

That's how I understand it. It comes from the egalitarian ideal of the Roman Republic. Both among ancient Greeks and Romans. Polygamy was associated with royalty, and therefore seen as decadent.

Worth noting is that Roman Christians thought sex with slaves was always ok. It's not in the Bible because to the Roman's it was so obviously ok that there was no need to mention it. The rules in the Bible are only about free men and women.

Slaves were never outlawed in the Roman empire. But as Rome stopped expanding in size new slaves stopped flowing into the empire. And since Rome had a tradition of freeing hard working slaves upon the death of their master, slaves, over time vanished from Roman society. Making the concept of sex with slaves go away by itself without the church ever having to deal with it.

Sex outside marriage was always frowned upon in Rome. But was not outlawed until Augustus in 60 BC
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
....Sex outside marriage was always frowned upon in Rome. But was not outlawed until Augustus in 60 BC
Really? BTW what did they call that? "Fornication"? You earlier said "Worth noting is that Roman Christians thought sex with slaves was always ok"
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,310
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
....Sex outside marriage was always frowned upon in Rome. But was not outlawed until Augustus in 60 BC
Really? BTW what did they call that? "Fornication"? You earlier said "Worth noting is that Roman Christians thought sex with slaves was always ok"

That's how I see it. There's a reason ancient Greek plays have survived and are still staged while ancient Roman plays aren't (even though we have so many more of them). Apart from slaves, ancient Roman plays have modern values. They feel too modern to be interesting. There's not enough novelty for theatre goers.

They thought it was shameful for a free man or woman to fall in love with a slave. But just having sex they were cool with.

There's a funny famous poem by Cutulus where he has sex with a slave while saying that he will forever be faithful to his love Lesbia. To a modern reader it's a contradiction. While in Rome sex with slaves was a common method to overcome a broken heart.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
.....They thought it was shameful for a free man or woman to fall in love with a slave. But just having sex they were cool with.

There's a funny famous poem by Cutulus where he has sex with a slave while saying that he will forever be faithful to his love Lesbia. To a modern reader it's a contradiction. While in Rome sex with slaves was a common method to overcome a broken heart.
Though today there can be some stigma with having sex with a prostitute, even in Australia....
BTW about "Roman Christians thought sex with slaves was always ok" - do you have a source that Christians would take seriously/believe?
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,310
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
.....They thought it was shameful for a free man or woman to fall in love with a slave. But just having sex they were cool with.

There's a funny famous poem by Cutulus where he has sex with a slave while saying that he will forever be faithful to his love Lesbia. To a modern reader it's a contradiction. While in Rome sex with slaves was a common method to overcome a broken heart.
Though today there can be some stigma with having sex with a prostitute, even in Australia....
BTW about "Roman Christians thought sex with slaves was always ok" - do you have a source that Christians would take seriously/believe?

There's no sources about it. And that's the interesting thing bit. We know it was normal in Roman society. Yet, the early Christian never talked about it. It was all around the early Christians and they didn't feel the urge to condemn it.

Pagan temples almost always had a brothel attached to them to pay for upkeep of the temple. When the Roman empire became Christian and these temples were converted to churches the brothels kept going. They didn't use the term brothel. It was more like a "sacred rite". But it was prostitution. "Temples to Venus" literally was just classy brothels. The temples of Vesta were famous for that you COULDN'T fuck the priestesses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_ancient_Rome#Prostitution_and_religion

In Judaism temple prostitutes were called "kedeshah". Jewish gay temple prostitutes were called "Kadesh". Which tells you a lot about how banned it was within Judaism (= not at all). Yes, you read that right. You could go to a Jewish temple to Jehova and have gay sexy times with a man. Not in the main temple. But in a building attached to it. And the money went straight to the Rabbi who was in charge of administering all this. Nobody back then would have seen sex with a temple prostitute as unfaithfulness.

Augustus railed against prostitutes picking up clients at the Coloseum. Which he thought was horrendously immoral. But he had no problem with contemporary temple prostitution which he thought was normal and natural.

The Christian church was always against temple prostitution. But for whatever reason they weren't against them enough to close the temple brothels until quite late. In the mid 300's the main ones were closed. Not by the church. But by emperor Constantine. I can't find it now, but I know the pope didn't officially ban them until sometimes in the 500's AD. Which the churches complained about since they needed the money to help pay for the running of the church.

It's also important to understand that in the medieval church the commandments were only ever intended to be applied to the masses. Nobles were always assumed to be above the Biblical law. It wasn't until the 1800's and the beginning of mass media that the popes decided that it was unbecoming of the clergy to have a harem of prostitutes living with him in the papal palace.

John Knox famously went to Rome and visited the pope, and was shocked about that the pope wasn't hiding the fact that S:t Peters palace had an entire wing populated with his courtesans. He had no problem with the pope screwing hookers. What he didn't like was that the pope couldn't be bothered to hide it.

The churches critique against Marquis de Sade wasn't the fact that he was having all that debauched sex. Only that he was acting above his station. If he'd been a prince, his behaviour would have been fine.

The Christian church's attitudes about sex is quite fascinating and often quite contradictory.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,426
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Ken Ham is saying that without the foundation of Biblical literalism and with a foundation of evolution it is up to you to decide though a belief in evolution could make things like abortion seem ok since it could be argued that it is just some tissue or an animal rather than a human life. Though I guess it is possible an atheistic "evolutionist" could be completely against abortion.
Not just possible -- it used to be quite common, back in the era before abortion was normalized. What people are completely against usually has more to do with what their cultures taboo than with what they can construct a coherent argument for or with what their scriptures say. We don't find a lot of Christians who are completely against cotton/polyester fabrics.

Morality based on "God's word" theoretically has an absolute foundation while "anything goes" if you base it on man's opinions.

That's a bald claim, unsupportable.

What if I said that morality based on logic is objective, but moralities based on the opinions of various gods are inherently subjective? Wouldn't that argument be at least as strong as yours?

And if morality really were based on the words of gods, that's when we'd have a case of anything goes. "Regardless of logic or consequences, anything that god says goes."
From post #11:
If you believe in creation what does that mean? Doesn't it mean there's a creator?
What's immoral is violating other people's rights. Well, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Well, why would morality need gods, then? We were created by natural selection. And since it was natural selection that endowed us with certain unalienable rights and not some insane alien from beyond spacetime, so much the better -- to identify those rights we won't have to take the word of some self-appointed creator-spokesman who's probably lying for his own nefarious purposes, and can instead expect the rights to have some logic to them and to be accessible to investigation.

The creator owns you, he sets the rules. It means we are to be in total submission to him. He is the absolute authority. He sets what's right and what's wrong. He has a right to do that because he owns us, because he created us. On the other hand if you believe you're a product of chance random processes who owns you? You do. Who sets the rules? You do. Who decides what's right and what's wrong? You do.
This is a completely self-contradictory argument. It relies on the unsupported premise "If you create it you own it and you have the right to do what you like with it", which is just a rule somebody made up. If relying on rules somebody just made up means you have a subjective "anything goes" morality, then Divine Command Theory is every bit as subjective and "anything goes" as "Who decides what's right and what's wrong? You do.".

And of course we know "If you create it you own it and you have the right to do what you like with it" isn't really true. People are created by their parents. Doesn't make child-abuse okay.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,426
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
.....If a Sim thinks the computer code is all there is to physics, and then when he discovers there's a player with a mouse he can interact with he concludes players are supernatural, that isn't a Sim discovering physics can't account for everything. That's a Sim giving up.
I'd assume that the mouse pointer can only be seen by the player and the sims also can't see or hear the player. The only activity of the player that the sims would be able to detect is the player creating, removing, moving, and modifying objects
If a scientifically minded Sim has gotten as far as figuring out some computer code that could account for most object behavior, and he goes on to notice there are occasional events that that hypothetical code doesn't explain, the null hypothesis would be that occasionally things happen at random, just as we hypothesize that occasionally uranium atoms decay at random. The next step is to collect statistics on the unexplained events and look for patterns and correlations. We assume uranium decays randomly because we've already done all that -- we've collected lots of statistics and we can't find anything that uranium decays correlate with -- but since the human operator isn't really random, eventually a Sim may detect a pattern in the unexplained events, and form a hypothesis, and test his theory that if he does this the probability of an object anomalously acting that way goes up, and confirm or falsify his theory. In principle this process could eventually lead to evidence that there's an intelligent player making choices about modifying objects, followed by constructing a language for communication, followed by the Sims becoming aware of gravity and quantum entanglement and so forth. This would be sort of analogous to what humans experienced in the 1920s when we realized the Milky Way wasn't the entire cosmos -- the Sims would find out what they'd known of reality up until then was only a tiny piece of it. Alternately, the Sims might not be smart enough to detect the patterns in the player's actions, and they'd just retain the theory that sometimes objects change randomly.

- and when the player is giving orders to the sims they would think they (or part of their personality) thought up the decision themselves.
True; but from the point of view of a Sim, another Sim is just an object. If they have a theory of what computer code could account for typical object behavior, it presumably would account for most of Sims' own decisions as well. Then when a Sim behaves anomalously because the player gave it orders, the other Sims could notice, conclude that sometimes Sims make random decisions too, look for patterns and correlations in the apparently random decisions, and the rest follows...
 

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
3,453
Location
Denver
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
... The creator owns you, he sets the rules.

Who made that rule? You? Why should we believe it's true.

Are you saying that's true in all possible created worlds?

What if I said that in all countries with fuhrers, the fuhrer is in charge. He owns you. He sets the rules. You are morally obligated to follow those rules.

Is your argument that creators rule any stronger than my argument that fuhrers rule?

I don't think so. I think they are both bald claims, undefended and indefensible.



It means we are to be in total submission to him. He is the absolute authority. He sets what's right and what's wrong.

Did you just make that up, or can you give us some reason to agree with you?



He has a right to do that because he owns us, because he created us.

Who made that rule? Certainly not a benevolent god.

And if the person who made the rule isn't benevolent, why should we care about his rules?

Can you offer us any justification at all for your outrageous claim?



...

Though in this case Ken's opponent wasn't very good at justifying their morality....

Pot, meet kettle. You haven't even made a stab at justifying your morality.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,814
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
… do you have a source that Christians would take seriously/believe?

That’s epic. You mean “is it in the Bible?”

No, and neither is the Pythagorean theorem, the value of pi or the wavelength of UV light. But that doesn’t mean that those things cannot be determined to a degree of precision.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,023
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
… do you have a source that Christians would take seriously/believe?

That’s epic. You mean “is it in the Bible?”

No, and neither is the Pythagorean theorem, the value of pi or the wavelength of UV light. But that doesn’t mean that those things cannot be determined to a degree of precision.

Seeing as how bible eaters think their magic book is the source of everything it's hard to have a meaningful discussion on "sources." My source for knowledge is the universe, and from knowledge derives morality. What is the source for someone learning to brush their teeth or pick up their keys? On record the bible is a pretty immoral book. Anyone sourcing their morality therefrom cannot be moral unless they are projecting.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Who made that rule? You? Why should we believe it's true....
That quote is from Ken Ham, not me. I said "I'm not a supporter of Ken Ham".
What if I said that in all countries with fuhrers, the fuhrer is in charge. He owns you. He sets the rules. You are morally obligated to follow those rules.


Is your argument that creators rule any stronger than my argument that fuhrers rule?
Well God can apparently also give extreme rewards and punishments - eternal paradise and eternal torment.
Who made that rule? Certainly not a benevolent god.
Well Christians including Ken Ham believe God is perfectly benevolent...
And if the person who made the rule isn't benevolent, why should we care about his rules?
Consequences in the afterlife...
Though in this case Ken's opponent wasn't very good at justifying their morality....
Pot, meet kettle. You haven't even made a stab at justifying your morality.
I haven't even mentioned my morality. I believe most of the Bible isn't true and a lot of it isn't moral.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
… do you have a source that Christians would take seriously/believe?

That’s epic. You mean “is it in the Bible?”

No, and neither is the Pythagorean theorem, the value of pi or the wavelength of UV light. But that doesn’t mean that those things cannot be determined to a degree of precision.
DrZoidberg wrote "Roman Christians thought sex with slaves was always ok" - and there could be other sources besides the Bible.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
.....This is a completely self-contradictory argument. It relies on the unsupported premise "If you create it you own it and you have the right to do what you like with it", which is just a rule somebody made up. If relying on rules somebody just made up means you have a subjective "anything goes" morality, then Divine Command Theory is every bit as subjective and "anything goes" as "Who decides what's right and what's wrong? You do.".
If there was one creator for the history of the world then there is apparently one set of rules (I suppose the two covenants are somehow consistent). If evolution is true there can be millions of sets of rules.
And of course we know "If you create it you own it and you have the right to do what you like with it" isn't really true. People are created by their parents. Doesn't make child-abuse okay.
Well parents are fellow humans while God is a superior being compared to humans.... he commands people to love him with all their heart, mind, soul, and strength.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,814
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
If evolution is true there can be millions of sets of rules.

Show your work. Did you get this from an authority figure?
And there is absolutely no question of "IF evolution is true", as it is tested and observed as well as, or better than, any other scientific findings. Including all those that enable scientists to fly helicopters on Mars.

Actually, evolutionary mechanics are well replicated in genetic algorithms, and yield effects that are almost as surprising as those of biological evolution.

The dynamics are simple, even for organisms: brute force trial and error and maximum number of trials through imperfect replications, converging on replication success. Physical conditions dictate the contours of the fitness landscape for biological organisms, and that is complicated. But it doesn't have to be for evolution to be shown to be operative.

antenna.jpg
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
If a scientifically minded Sim has gotten as far as figuring out some computer code that could account for most object behavior,
I don't think it is generally possible for characters in a game to detect what the computer code is (unless the game was designed for that, or the player was showing the characters the code). The computer code runs in a fraction of a second rather than just hanging around. They could notice consistencies in the behaviour of the world though.
....and he goes on to notice there are occasional events that that hypothetical code doesn't explain, the null hypothesis would be that occasionally things happen at random...
Generally when a player interacts with objects they improve things like change it for better furniture... and in the game the Sims sometimes call out to the player which suggests they believe in an intelligent force.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
If evolution is true there can be millions of sets of rules.
Show your work. Did you get this from an authority figure?
I mean if you don't believe in a creator there could be a large number of different systems of morality.... with Ken Ham's creation foundation there is theoretically one system of morality though Christians would disagree on some of the specifics....
Ken Ham didn't say that evolutionists could have millions of sets of morality, just that it is up to the individual (and a evolutionist world view)
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,814
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
If evolution is true there can be millions of sets of rules.
Show your work. Did you get this from an authority figure?
I mean if you don't believe in a creator there could be a large number of different systems of morality.... with Ken Ham's creation foundation there is theoretically one system of morality though Christians would disagree on some of the specifics....
Ken Ham didn't say that evolutionists could have millions of sets of morality, just that it is up to the individual (and a evolutionist world view)

Every existing "set of morality" has evolutionary imperatives at its core, because we are products of evolution.
Without the primacy of those evolutionary imperatives, we wouldn't be here to mentally masturbate over "moral systems".

IF there is a creator, its greatest creation is the process of evolution.
THERE IS evolution. It is a PROCESS that is repeatedly OBSERVED, and controls outcomes in any arena where imperfect self replicators inhabit a dynamic fitness landscape.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,800
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
I mean if you don't believe in a creator there could be a large number of different systems of morality.... with Ken Ham's creation foundation there is theoretically one system of morality though Christians would disagree on some of the specifics....
Ken Ham didn't say that evolutionists could have millions of sets of morality, just that it is up to the individual (and a evolutionist world view)

If you open Professor Ham's Bible, you can get it to say damn near anything you want, on numerous moral issues -- right down to what standard of morality one uses, i.e., Torah law or salvation by grace. Try to find one consistent, unchanging Bible teaching on faith vs. acts, pacifism vs. taking up arms, returning good for evil or slaughtering one's enemy and committing rape and rapine on his cities, polygamy vs. monogamy, predestination vs. free choice, murder the unbeliever vs. love your enemy.
 
Last edited:

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
If evolution is true there can be millions of sets of rules..

You continue to approach evolutionary theory as the atheist position, and only the atheist position.

This is fucking wrong.

You should be saying that 'if atheism is true,' as people do not look to evolutionary theory as a source of morality.
And still, 'if evolution were true' is something many Christains find compatible with their worship of Jehovah.
 

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,328
It seems like you're missing my point, or just ignoring it. My understanding of what you're saying is there is no physical embodiment of God, therefore Santa is perceived as more real. Yes, I'm with you on the point that to children Santa is real because there is a physical embodiment. But the analogy between child / adult isn't even really apt, because children will believe anything you tell them. You could feed a four year old literally any story and they would believe it.

But my argument is that you're understating how much of a physical embodiment of the Adult God there is. No you can't actually see God, but you can spend your entire life surrounded by other people who literally believe in it's existence, and will do anything in their power to convince you that it's real. In some regions of the world people can spend their entire life coming across no contrary social inputs.

You can live in cities where there might be 20 - 30 churches, some very grandiose, and in Catholic versions very striking imagery. In these same cities there might be biblical quotes on a number of street corners.

The bible is the world's best selling book and at least half of the world's population believe that it's a holy text.

On Facebook you can follow religious pages that will promote religion day after day.

So for the adult it's not just a matter of intellect, and interacting with the world like a child, it's a matter of religion being a normalized part of our culture. Religion is even more pernicious than Santa because to most of the world it is real. I get that you consider yourself an activist of sorts with regards to religion, but the constant insinuation that the religious are just dumb feels off the mark to me.

I think it's more the case that those who can see beyond culture are very smart. Where those who fall for culture are just normal people.

I get what you are saying and I don't disagree with the gist of it. I can certainly see myself being the same way given the same inputs. It's why I don't try to change the way people think anymore than I try to change how tall they are. Would I be happier if I woke up tomorrow and observed that everyone had acquired sufficient knowledge to conclude that there aren't invisible people living in the sky? Certainly.

One of my favorite sayings is "You can't use knowledge you don't have." That is the explanation for why kids pretty much believe anything they're told, because they don't know any better. They simply lack enough knowledge to come to the informed conclusion that santa is a dog and pony show. Not until they muster sufficient knowledge does santa belief change.

How are adults that worship invisible creatures living in the sky any different? What exactly would allow them to "see beyond culture" if not knowledge? In short, they lack the intellect - lack the intellect for whatever reason. Those reasons are many and varied but in the end it's an intellectual shortcoming. And aren't very smart people normal people too?

That kid who believes in santa is living in his santa culture. Then it changes. The kid was just as normal before he stopped believing as he was after, but he's smarter because he has knowledge that allowed him to make an important change.

That same kid has no doubt heard about gods and religion too. Think for a second how many kids' lives would be different if told that some people believe gods are real and some don't. And that it's fine to be either way. Pretty important bit of acquired knowledge wouldn't you say? But how many kids have that experience? Pretty close to zero?

And that's why kids continue to believe in invisible people living in the sky. It's okay to stop believing in santa but it isn't okay to stop believing in invisible people living in the sky. That understanding, that knowledge, is denied in that culture.

What you don't seem to be seeing is that you're denigrating those who believe in religion by explaining their religiosity as a lack of something, in your view - intellect. What I'm trying to convey is that a mental configuration that readily accepts immediate, and popular culture is a feature of our species, not a bug. It's how we're built.

Look to other cultural elements like child-rearing, marriage, the importance of a well-paying job - who has the most children: those who readily buy into these things and do them with joy, or counter-culturists who reject these popular elements? Of course it's those who buy-in, which suggests that a central, and enduring feature of our species is that people ultimately identify with their immediate environment and social inputs. We're not supposed to see through popular culture, which includes religion.

So it's fine, as a part of any given culture, to input whatever kind of information you want into that culture, this is how change works. But it's also worthwhile to recognize that, as a species, we're not progressing towards some type of higher intellect in any meaningful sense. The reality is that intellect isn't the primary feature of our cognitive make-up, it's just a tool in a set of tools that we use to navigate our environment. To put it more plainly, and in reference to your point - it's worthwhile to view people who hold deluded beliefs as essentially average and regular people, not lacking anything. Because almost every human being on the planet holds deluded beliefs.
 

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
3,453
Location
Denver
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
That quote is from Ken Ham, not me. I said "I'm not a supporter of Ken Ham".

Well God can apparently also give extreme rewards and punishments - eternal paradise and eternal torment.
Who made that rule? Certainly not a benevolent god.
Well Christians including Ken Ham believe God is perfectly benevolent...
And if the person who made the rule isn't benevolent, why should we care about his rules?
Consequences in the afterlife...
Though in this case Ken's opponent wasn't very good at justifying their morality....
Pot, meet kettle. You haven't even made a stab at justifying your morality.
I haven't even mentioned my morality. I believe most of the Bible isn't true and a lot of it isn't moral.


So what's your point here? You field an argument, and when we refute it, you say, "It wasn't my argument."

If we point out what's wrong with your claim that atheists have more versions of morality than theists, will you say that that's not your argument either?

What do you want from us?
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,814
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
… do you have a source that Christians would take seriously/believe?

That’s epic. You mean “is it in the Bible?”

No, and neither is the Pythagorean theorem, the value of pi or the wavelength of UV light. But that doesn’t mean that those things cannot be determined to a degree of precision.
DrZoidberg wrote "Roman Christians thought sex with slaves was always ok" - and there could be other sources besides the Bible.

Yes. But you asked for ones that Christians would believe.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
excreationist said:
I haven't even mentioned my morality. I believe most of the Bible isn't true and a lot of it isn't moral.
So what's your point here? You field an argument, and when we refute it, you say, "It wasn't my argument."
Well I was talking about Ken Ham's concept of promoting creation "science" as a way of giving fundamentalist morality a strong foundation (in his view).

You seemed to think it was my argument....

"...Can you actually not see what's wrong with pedophilia? Do you really need to have religion to oppose child abuse?..."

Ken Ham said "The creator owns you, he sets the rules."

You wrote: "Who made that rule? You?"

Ken Ham said "It means we are to be in total submission to him. He is the absolute authority. He sets what's right and what's wrong."

You wrote: "Did you just make that up, or can you give us some reason to agree with you?"

"You haven't even made a stab at justifying your morality."

If we point out what's wrong with your claim that atheists have more versions of morality than theists, will you say that that's not your argument either?
Well it was my argument.... I thought "anything goes" implied that there are more versions of their morality but that might not be true.
What do you want from us?
Well I just thought his castle analogy, etc, was interesting. I am quite familiar with it (since I used to believe in it and still sometimes see Ken Ham talk) and thought I'd play devil's advocate here (perhaps that is a somewhat odd thing to do). So this is about Ken Ham's arguments and I don't necessarily agree with him.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,023
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
So it's fine, as a part of any given culture, to input whatever kind of information you want into that culture, this is how change works. But it's also worthwhile to recognize that, as a species, we're not progressing towards some type of higher intellect in any meaningful sense. The reality is that intellect isn't the primary feature of our cognitive make-up, it's just a tool in a set of tools that we use to navigate our environment. To put it more plainly, and in reference to your point - it's worthwhile to view people who hold deluded beliefs as essentially average and regular people, not lacking anything. Because almost every human being on the planet holds deluded beliefs.
Just because a behavior is common certainly doesn't make it good or desirable. I'm sure we agree on that. Obesity is growing in popularity. Is it right to just accept that obesity is the new norm and treat obese people as healthy humans? Should doctors start ignoring the condition in their patients? We have lots of people practicing lots of destructive behaviors that are common but we certainly shouldn't encourage the behavior.

Maybe we shouldn't discourage it either except to point out that even though it's culturally acceptable it doesn't make it beneficial. These behaviors should be seen as cultural disease and that includes the practice of woo, which includes religion which is fueled by simple human ignorance, which fuels all such behaviors.

A person needn't be an Einstein to behave as if belief in magic sky people is dopey or to think that a magic boat saved our species while an invisible space creature was having a tantrum and murdering everyone on the planet because those people were evil. Should we amend the santa tale and start telling kids that if they misbehave santa will come in the night and kill them, kill mom and dad and burn their home down? That's what religion does.

It's better we expose these kids to the reality that adult santa isn't real and that lots of people live their lives morally without needing a dopey adult Monster Claus.
 

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,328
So it's fine, as a part of any given culture, to input whatever kind of information you want into that culture, this is how change works. But it's also worthwhile to recognize that, as a species, we're not progressing towards some type of higher intellect in any meaningful sense. The reality is that intellect isn't the primary feature of our cognitive make-up, it's just a tool in a set of tools that we use to navigate our environment. To put it more plainly, and in reference to your point - it's worthwhile to view people who hold deluded beliefs as essentially average and regular people, not lacking anything. Because almost every human being on the planet holds deluded beliefs.
Just because a behavior is common certainly doesn't make it good or desirable. I'm sure we agree on that. Obesity is growing in popularity. Is it right to just accept that obesity is the new norm and treat obese people as healthy humans? Should doctors start ignoring the condition in their patients? We have lots of people practicing lots of destructive behaviors that are common but we certainly shouldn't encourage the behavior.

Maybe we shouldn't discourage it either except to point out that even though it's culturally acceptable it doesn't make it beneficial. These behaviors should be seen as cultural disease and that includes the practice of woo, which includes religion which is fueled by simple human ignorance, which fuels all such behaviors.

A person needn't be an Einstein to behave as if belief in magic sky people is dopey or to think that a magic boat saved our species while an invisible space creature was having a tantrum and murdering everyone on the planet because those people were evil. Should we amend the santa tale and start telling kids that if they misbehave santa will come in the night and kill them, kill mom and dad and burn their home down? That's what religion does.

It's better we expose these kids to the reality that adult santa isn't real and that lots of people live their lives morally without needing a dopey adult Monster Claus.
You're free to encourage anything you like among your community, my point is that religiosity isn't a mental defect or the result of a mental defect.

Also, to you religion may not be desirable but to the religious it is desirable. Again, convince away, but the world isn't as linear as you're surmising.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,968
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Well I was talking about Ken Ham's concept of promoting creation "science" as a way of giving fundamentalist morality a strong foundation (in his view).

You seemed to think it was my argument....

"...Can you actually not see what's wrong with pedophilia? Do you really need to have religion to oppose child abuse?..."

Ken Ham said "The creator owns you, he sets the rules."

You wrote: "Who made that rule? You?"

Ken Ham said "It means we are to be in total submission to him. He is the absolute authority. He sets what's right and what's wrong."

You wrote: "Did you just make that up, or can you give us some reason to agree with you?"

"You haven't even made a stab at justifying your morality."

If we point out what's wrong with your claim that atheists have more versions of morality than theists, will you say that that's not your argument either?
Well it was my argument.... I thought "anything goes" implied that there are more versions of their morality but that might not be true.
What do you want from us?
Well I just thought his castle analogy, etc, was interesting. I am quite familiar with it (since I used to believe in it and still sometimes see Ken Ham talk) and thought I'd play devil's advocate here (perhaps that is a somewhat odd thing to do). So this is about Ken Ham's arguments and I don't necessarily agree with him.
You are spending an inordinate amount of time taking up a Devil's Advocate position. And it is more of a contrary Devil's advocate position you have taken, somewhat ignoring arguments against those positions.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,968
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
If evolution is true there can be millions of sets of rules.
Show your work. Did you get this from an authority figure?
I mean if you don't believe in a creator there could be a large number of different systems of morality.... with Ken Ham's creation foundation there is theoretically one system of morality though Christians would disagree on some of the specifics....
Ken Ham didn't say that evolutionists could have millions of sets of morality, just that it is up to the individual (and a evolutionist world view)
Ken Ham's argument complains that the atheist position is inconvenient, therefore it is false. Quite possibly the dumbest science argument that could be made.

Fact is, there is no absolute origin for morality. Even among religions, all the gods that have existed on paper on Earth, have each come up with their own.

An argument from inconvenience and hyperbole is usually the more arbitrary one. Ham wants to say mankind can't exist with absolute moral foundations. The Eastern Hemisphere did just fine without Jesus. So did North Americans and South Americans... and Africans. It wasn't perfect, but everyone was able to come up with a moral code that allowed civilizations to exist.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,426
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
If there was one creator for the history of the world then there is apparently one set of rules (I suppose the two covenants are somehow consistent). If evolution is true there can be millions of sets of rules.
That's what we see in the world: there are different sets of rules for every species, or at least for mammals. Other primates have rule sets that are different in detail but still enough like ours that it's clear they're genetically related. (When we get out to animals like wolves, their societies also have their own sets of rules, but they're so different from ours they may have evolved completely independently, so it's not clear it makes sense for us to think of their rules as a moral system.)

And of course we know "If you create it you own it and you have the right to do what you like with it" isn't really true. People are created by their parents. Doesn't make child-abuse okay.
Well parents are fellow humans while God is a superior being compared to humans.... he commands people to love him with all their heart, mind, soul, and strength.
That's a whole new argument from "He has a right to do that because he owns us, because he created us.". If the reason for saying we owe him obedience is his superiority rather than his having created us, that's prima facie a better argument.

On the other hand, by what standard is he a superior being? Is there some objective standard for superiority, or is it just that he thinks he's superior and we're supposed to just take his word for it? Because that cuts both ways. I think I'm a superior being; why shouldn't it be he who has to just take my word for it that I'm superior? I at least have the virtue of not being so arrogant I'd tell others whom to love.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,426
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
If a scientifically minded Sim has gotten as far as figuring out some computer code that could account for most object behavior,
I don't think it is generally possible for characters in a game to detect what the computer code is (unless the game was designed for that, or the player was showing the characters the code). The computer code runs in a fraction of a second rather than just hanging around. They could notice consistencies in the behaviour of the world though.
Yeah, I get that. I didn't mean the Sims could figure out the actual code; I meant they could figure out some hypothetical code that if it had been the actual code would have led to the events they observe. For any computer program there are an infinite number of other programs with the same observable functionality; the functionality divides the space of possible programs into equivalence classes. So if they're smart enough, the Sims could in theory identify some program that's in the same equivalence class as the real one. For example, maybe the actual Sim implementation sorts some things. Then the Sims could observe that those things are always sorted, and deduce that the real code for themselves must contain a sorting function, but they'd never be able to tell whether it was a merge sort or a bubble sort or whatever.

....and he goes on to notice there are occasional events that that hypothetical code doesn't explain, the null hypothesis would be that occasionally things happen at random...
Generally when a player interacts with objects they improve things like change it for better furniture... and in the game the Sims sometimes call out to the player which suggests they believe in an intelligent force.
So that's the sort of pattern that scientific investigation of anomalies might turn up, that could allow the Sims to eventually deduce the existence of a larger world than what they can directly perceive.
 

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
3,453
Location
Denver
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Well I was talking about Ken Ham's concept of promoting creation "science" as a way of giving fundamentalist morality a strong foundation (in his view).

You seemed to think it was my argument....

"...Can you actually not see what's wrong with pedophilia? Do you really need to have religion to oppose child abuse?..."

Ken Ham said "The creator owns you, he sets the rules."

You wrote: "Who made that rule? You?"

Ken Ham said "It means we are to be in total submission to him. He is the absolute authority. He sets what's right and what's wrong."

You wrote: "Did you just make that up, or can you give us some reason to agree with you?"

"You haven't even made a stab at justifying your morality."


Well it was my argument.... I thought "anything goes" implied that there are more versions of their morality but that might not be true.

Well I just thought his castle analogy, etc, was interesting. I am quite familiar with it (since I used to believe in it and still sometimes see Ken Ham talk) and thought I'd play devil's advocate here (perhaps that is a somewhat odd thing to do). So this is about Ken Ham's arguments and I don't necessarily agree with him.
You are spending an inordinate amount of time taking up a Devil's Advocate position. And it is more of a contrary Devil's advocate position you have taken, somewhat ignoring arguments against those positions.


He floats arguments he wants us to engage with, but then he doesn't want to engage with them himself.

I felt like he was wasting my time, so I put him on ignore.
 
Top Bottom