 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » "There Is No Moral Law" Admits Famous Darwinist... |
|
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| James A. Donald... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:00:04 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet at (no spam) dcemail.com> wrote:
[quote]No
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree,
and all that is stopping you is your self-interest
[/quote]
"all"?
You *are* compelled to be nice, since you depend on cooperation with
others, who would of course be pissed at bad conduct. That seems to
be sufficient explanation for observed moral behavior. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Syd M.... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 8:44 pm, Frankie Lee <leeahk... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 10:32 pm, IAAH <n... at (no spam) email.exist> wrote:
On 11/1/09 9:00 AM, * Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362216/posts
Anti-creationist Professor Inadvertently Reveals the Truth of
Scripture
AiG ^ | October 13, 2009 | Bodie Hodge
Posted on 14. october 2009 17:21:07 by GodGunsGuts
A well-known University of Minnesota–Morris professor who has a
history
of hate speech against creationists-especially Answers in Genesis and
the Creation Museum[1]-inadvertently admitted recently that we were
not
wrong. This was kind of a blessing in disguise and also reveals much
about his character. Professor Paul (P.Z.) Myers said:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree,
and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very
destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support
system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you.
There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than
local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and
probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from
ancestors who lived under similar conditions.2
Myers admits there is no morality or anything that imposes it either
(i.e., God) in his worldview. This means that from his own worldview,
there is no such thing as right and wrong.
And that is where your argument fails, since you
had to lie about what Myers wrote.
**Why you lied and then accused others?
[/quote]
Why do you keep doing so, Frankie?
PDW |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Errol... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 11:33 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 6:26 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 12:42 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:12 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of
right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible
principles of action.
What the fuck's an inaccessible principle of action?
MG
Lets say that they are like the technology inside of your heat
adjustment box, or thermostat.
No lets not say that, why? Simply because technology and thermostats
man can access, try again.
MG
[/quote]
You can access it (inaccessible principle of action) but the trauma
injuries to your head will finish you off. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| IlBeBauck at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 8:00 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum... at (no spam) dcemail.com>
wrote:
[quote]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362216/posts
Anti-creationist Professor Inadvertently Reveals the Truth of
Scripture
AiG ^ | October 13, 2009 | Bodie Hodge
Posted on 14. october 2009 17:21:07 by GodGunsGuts
A well-known University of Minnesota–Morris professor who has a
history
of hate speech against creationists-especially Answers in Genesis and
the Creation Museum[1]-inadvertently admitted recently that we were
not
wrong. This was kind of a blessing in disguise and also reveals much
about his character. Professor Paul (P.Z.) Myers said:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree,
and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very
destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support
system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you.
There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than
local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and
probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from
ancestors who lived under similar conditions.2
Myers admits there is no morality or anything that imposes it either
(i.e., God) in his worldview. This means that from his own worldview,
there is no such thing as right and wrong. Accordingly, this means
that
there must be nothing wrong with teaching the truth of creation as
revealed in the Bible. Ironically, perhaps, it also means that there
is
nothing wrong in showing the problems with false religions like
humanism and evolution.
Please pray for P.Z. Myers and others like him, who seem to be
struggling spiritually; otherwise, there would be no reason for the
continued attacks on Christianity. If they were really being
consistent
with his atheistic beliefs, then why would they really care what
others
believe—especially if there is no such thing as right and wrong in
their own view?
The fact that Myers and others continue to blast Christianity reveals
that they really do believe in God, but want to suppress that
knowledge. This is further confirmation of the Bible’s accuracy
(Romans
1). Since Professor Myers also wants to silence his opposition, this
also shows that, even though he gives “lip service” to the idea that
there is no such thing as right and wrong, deep down, he really does
believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, actively defending
what he thinks is “right.”
For the Christian, though, we should not be surprised (1 John 3:13),
but saddened by attacks and for those that continue to reject the
Lord
Jesus Christ. But the Lord is patient:
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count
slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any
should
perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)
In the same way that Jesus Christ saved Saul (later named Paul), who
was arguably one of the most vicious persecutors of Christians in the
first century, Christ can save Prof. Myers or others hardened against
Him. Who knows? If that were to happen, perhaps P.Z. will be more apts
n
to go by Paul as wello
' First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No el
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree, '
[/quote]
There most certainly IS a moral law that is inscribed on all of our
hearts, its just that we all have the option of suppressing the moral
law so we can do/act/live/say whatever we feel like. Evidence for the
moral law is our RE-action to when we do something wrong...we try to
cover it up or make excuses . Plus, when someone commits a moral
infraction against us, our RE-action demonstrates that we are
absolutely offended . If there was no absolute moral law written on
our hearts, we would have no reason to cover up a wrong we do , or,
to feel indignant when we are slighted. Where does this moral law
come from ? It doesnt or cant come from materials or chemicals -- it
can only come from a Moral Law PRESCRIBER who put it into the fibre of
our beings so we would (hopefully) allow it to remind us when we do
something wrong and AVOID doing so. Of course this is the chief
problem today in america....a good percentage of the population
willfully chooses to suppress whats right from wrong on a regular
basis which is why we have a Nation of incivility/immorality/hedonism/
and narcissism ...and, why this will utterly ruin America in time.
Whats the answer ? Ask God to forgive you for violating his moral
laws , recieve the price paid for your sins by Christ, make him your
Lord, and ask God to help you to live a righteous life . Only by
having Gods spirit living in you , is victory possible and for you to
not have to account for your past immoral sins. God loves you and
has made a way possible., if you are willing to recieve it . |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jimbo... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 9:28 am, duke <duckgumb... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:00:04 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
soundoftrum... at (no spam) dcemail.com> wrote:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree,
Which is exactly where God
[/quote]
Prove that god exists. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 5:52 pm, Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
You can access it (inaccessible principle of action)
[/quote]
check your premises ewe fucking idiot.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 1:33 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 6:26 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 12:42 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:12 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of
right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible
principles of action.
What the fuck's an inaccessible principle of action?
MG
Lets say that they are like the technology inside of your heat
adjustment box, or thermostat.
No lets not say that, why? Simply because technology and thermostats
man can access, try again.
MG
[/quote]
Because it is an agreed upon convention to represent the way our brain
works through the best available scientific method. The basic method
that rules the day is the derivation of the best theory that can
predict when regularities of activity will occur in the future.
Here are the four methods your stuck with when you decide to terminate
the infinite regress of justification trees at some "unknown" level of
detail. The inductive method through probabilities.
Mill's Methods
Mill's methods are some methods used to formulate hypotheses of
certain phenomena. It is clearly a species of inductive arguments as
we shall see. More precisely the methods, first proposed by British
philosopher and logician John Stuart Mill, are used to find causes of
the phenomena to be explained. All of Mill's methods share the same
characteristics in that they separate the phenomena into two parts,
namely the parts to be explained, or the effects, and the antecedent
phenomena which include the likely causes of the effects. The method
is conducted by observing the effects and then reason to the likely
causes by observing common features, different features, features that
vary with each other, and so on. According to Mill, there are five of
his methods:
1. Method of Agreement
2. Method of Difference
3. Method of Agreement and Difference (Joint Method)
4. Method of Residue
5. Method of Concomittant Variation
----------------------------------------
1. Method of Agreement
----------------------------------------
Here is what the first method, Method of Agreement, does. First you
have a phenomenon you would like explained, for example a group of
students in a certain school all having diarrhea and vomiting. You
want to know what caused the symptom. You know that the symptom could
only be caused by food. So you list all the food eated by the affected
student up to the time when they were attacked, and suppose this is
the result:
A B C D ==> j h l k
E F A G ==> k o m n
H I J A ==> q r s k
The capital letters on the left hand side represent the antecedent
conditions, and the small letters on the right show the phenomena on
the effects side. Thus, in case of the students having diarrhea, the
left hand side represents the food eated by the students, and the
right hand side show the symptoms that they have. Suppose that each
capital letter represents a kind of food, and the small letters on the
right hand side represent a symptom. Then we can see that the
phenomena on the left hand side have one thing in common, A. And
similarly for the phenomena on the right hand side, the symptom k.
Thus we can conclude, using the First Method, that A is the likely
cause of k.
---------------------------------------
2. Method of Difference
---------------------------------------
Here is the diagram for the second method:
A B C D ==> j k l m
B C D ==> m l j
Suppose we have only two events which are alike in all aspects but
one. Then it is likely that the part that is the difference on the
left had side is the cause of the part that is missing on the right
hand side.
------------------------------------------------
3. Method of Agreement & Difference
- - (Joint Method)
------------------------------------------------
The third method has nothing but a joint consideration of the first
two methods in finding likely causes. Let's look at this diagram
A B C D ==> k l m o
A E F G ==> l p n r
A H I J ==> q u r l
H I M N ==> q r z y
O P Q R ==> x w n r
---------------------------------------------
4. Method of Residue
---------------------------------------------
Here is the diagram for the fourth method:
A B C D ==> o p q r
We know already that
A ==> p
B ==> q
C ==> r
Thus, we can conclude that D is the likely cause of o, because the
pair is the only one left from the matching of causes and effects
which we know already. That is why this method is called the Method of
Residue.
----------------------------------------------
5. Method of Concomittant Variation
----------------------------------------------
Here is the diagram for the last method:
A B C D1 ==> w x y z1
A B C D2 ==> w x y z2
A B C D3 ==> w x y z3
A B C D4 ==> w x y z4
A B C D5 ==> w x y z5
The phenomena are alike except only that there is a variation in the
degree of D on the left hand (causes) side, and the same for z on the
right hand side. Since everything else is equal we conclude that here
D is the likely cause of z.
http://pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~hsoraj/PhilandLogic/WeekFive.html#Mill
http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/sci/mill.php
http://www.thelogician.net/4_logic_of_causation/4_mills_methods.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Free Lunch... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:44:34 -0800 (PST), in alt.talk.creationism
"IlBeBauck at (no spam) gmail.com" <ilbebauck at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in
<5b27b508-942f-40e8-9abd-d95041750f4c at (no spam) a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
[quote]On Nov 1, 8:00 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum... at (no spam) dcemail.com
wrote:
[/quote]
....
[quote]' First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No el
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree, '
There most certainly IS a moral law that is inscribed on all of our
hearts,
[/quote]
So you claim, but cannot show us any evidence to support your claim.
[quote]its just that we all have the option of suppressing the moral
law so we can do/act/live/say whatever we feel like. Evidence for the
moral law is our RE-action to when we do something wrong...we try to
cover it up or make excuses .
[/quote]
No, it is not.
[quote]Plus, when someone commits a moral
infraction against us, our RE-action demonstrates that we are
absolutely offended .
[/quote]
I'm absolutely offended when you tell me lies about science, but you
appear to consider it your moral duty to lie about those things. What
moral code taught you when it was okay to lie? Where did God tell you to
stay ignorant?
[quote]If there was no absolute moral law written on
our hearts, we would have no reason to cover up a wrong we do , or,
to feel indignant when we are slighted.
[/quote]
So, you don't care what your fellow man thinks or how you fit into
society or why we have developed those rules over the years. Your
argument is that you are a sociopath that is being held back because of
your fear of God. Keep believing in God, by all means, then, because we
don't want you to act in the way you claim you would act if you weren't
being held back by your fear of God.
[quote]Where does this moral law
come from ? It doesnt or cant come from materials or chemicals -- it
can only come from a Moral Law PRESCRIBER who put it into the fibre of
our beings so we would (hopefully) allow it to remind us when we do
something wrong and AVOID doing so.
[/quote]
So, why did your supposed prescriber support slavery, one of the most
vile human institutions ever created?
[quote]Of course this is the chief
problem today in america....a good percentage of the population
willfully chooses to suppress whats right from wrong on a regular
basis which is why we have a Nation of incivility/immorality/hedonism/
and narcissism ...and, why this will utterly ruin America in time.
Whats the answer ? Ask God to forgive you for violating his moral
laws , recieve the price paid for your sins by Christ, make him your
Lord, and ask God to help you to live a righteous life . Only by
having Gods spirit living in you , is victory possible and for you to
not have to account for your past immoral sins. God loves you and
has made a way possible., if you are willing to recieve it .
[/quote]
God never had anything to do with any moral law. Morality is a cultural
development that we have seen change for the better over time. We have
higher standards and more sensible ones than the ones found in the
Bible. Why don't you explain why the Bible had such an inferior set of
morals? Why don't you explain why God supposedly told the Israelites to
murder everyone of a competing tribe, except that they could keep the
girls as their slaves? You preach a poor morality, indeed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dr. Omgorna Hackenslash MD... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32 at (no spam) cox.net> wrote in message
news:mk6re5hioem2ofe04ss3bmd4ja4mp9itps at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:00:04 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
soundoftrumpet at (no spam) dcemail.com> wrote:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn't mind killing you if you let them. No
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree,
Which is exactly where God comes in and calls to overcome our sinfulness
and
instead turn to love God and neighbor - by election.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
[/quote]
Love a serial mass murdering killer like God? Ha hahahah hahahah.... haha
you gotta be kidding us. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:00:04 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
[quote]Christ can save Prof. Myers or others hardened against
Him. Who knows?
[/quote]
I do.
Having just come from a meeting with Christ and some others, I call tell
you everyone is, in fact, saved. IOW, no one needs to be saved, the
saving issue is a done deal, Always has been. Believe or not, sinner or
not, whatever or whatever else. It's old business.
It may be worth mentioning also that Christ is an atheist, of sorts.
Which may sound funny, in a way, but if you really think about it this
makes sense since he does not 'believe' anything. No need to.
Anyway, just to let you know the pressure to be saved and to save others
is off. Now you can go back and just live as you may. One less thing to
worry about, eh?
Oh yes, about morality. This was brought up briefly in the meeting. You
may want to just look at the end of Monty Pythons film "The Meaning Of
Life" which is nothing more than a (yet another) basic repackaging job of
what most everyone already knows and has known since people could 'know'.
Sorry if this all seems so dull and void of conflict but there it is
anyway. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Chief Instigator... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 08:28:06 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32 at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:00:04 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
soundoftrumpet at (no spam) dcemail.com> wrote:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless
place where most things wouldn?t mind killing you if you let them. No
one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder
spree,
Which is exactly where God comes in and calls to overcome our sinfulness and
instead turn to love God and neighbor - by election.
[/quote]
Your sky pixie doesn't get a vote, Dreck.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick at (no spam) io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Texas 3, Houston 1 (October 30)
NEXT GAME:Thursday, November 5 vs. Manitoba, 5:05 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:52 am
|
|