Big Bang and creation of the universe

08/11/2006 11:17:38 PM · #777

Originally posted by pidge:

Originally posted by Melethia:
What do you call someone who believes there is most likely a spiritual component to existance but not necessarily a single "god"?

I beleive they are generally referred to as agnostic. Correct me if I'm wrong

Then apparently I have a box I can check on the next survey where that comes up. :-)

I presided over a going-away luncheon for a wonderful young woman at work today. One of the things I said was that though I may not be an "organized religion" kind of person, that were someone to ask if I believed in God, I'd have to say yes, simply because I see him(her?) in the young woman we're sending off - in all that she says, does, and simply is. To me, the true test of faith is to live it - don't espouse it, don't preach it to those you think "need to hear it" - just live it.

08/11/2006 11:31:52 PM · #778

Theist: belief in God or gods
Atheist: no belief in God or gods
Agnostic: Possibly God or gods, but no way to know
Non-theist: No way to know, so the question is moot

08/12/2006 01:10:42 AM · #779

You can add pantheists who believe in many gods like Hindus or many tribal cultures which have a god for nearly everything, the tree over there, the river, the mountain, etc.

Interestingly, the same issues Scalvert is dealing with are also faced in worldviews with more than one deity. Many of these come down to two major gods which represent good and evil, yin and yang, etc. Because you now have two equal entities you one again run into the problem of finding the moral standard.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

08/12/2006 01:14:08 AM · #780

Originally posted by scalvert:

He would be right by his standards and I would be right by mine. Why can't I fight for my beliefs?

Sure you can, and Might Equals Right in your world. That sounds encouraging...

milo655321

Nikon D70

08/12/2006 10:12:53 AM · #781

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

See, my above post, I won't continue the argument until we start actually arguing what is really being said...

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 7:1-2 (NIV):

1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nationsâ��the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 20:16-17 (NIV):

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy themâ��the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusitesâ��as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Amorite children are included, n'est pas?

Yes, according to my own flawed human morality, I find that intentionally killing children is wrong even in a time of war.

Message edited by author 2006-08-12 10:13:20.

08/12/2006 10:51:11 AM · #782

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

....Might Equals Right in your world.

Not in MY world. In THE world. That's pretty much how history has worked. Whether it's the Christians or the Taliban, the army that wins gets to dictate what's right to the losers. Not everyone has to agree with those standards, just as not everyone agrees with the current laws of our country or within the Catholic church (euthanasia, abortion, gay rights, etc.). The people in power get to make the rules- you either follow those rules or try to change/influence who's in power (see Dr. Martin Luther King).

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Because you now have two equal entities you one again run into the problem of finding the moral standard.

Again, there isn't an absolute standard to find. What's right depends entirely on what a society accepts as right. You start with the bible, koran, constitution, etc. and the interpretation of those in power (the Pope, the Supreme Ayatollah, the dictator or the people themselves in a democracy) determines what's right. 100 years ago segregation was accepted as right by those in power in this country. Now it's not.

Message edited by author 2006-08-12 10:51:28.

08/12/2006 02:25:49 PM · #783

Originally posted by scalvert:

I disagree. The constitution in this country IS an absolute standard. SCOTUS rules on cases based on it's constitutionality and nothing else. If it finds something to be "constitutional" then it means it is permissible according to the constitution, a.k.a. the absolute standard.

Message edited by author 2006-08-12 15:10:13.

08/12/2006 03:16:03 PM · #784

Originally posted by scalvert:

Of course I don't- and neither does anyone else. We agree within groups on different principles: abortion, euthanasia, minority rights, Iraq, legalized gambling, etc. Even within your own church you won't find everyone agreeing lockstep on every topic. One person's right over the choices of society is called a vote. Be sure to exercise that right.

So on one hand you said society dictates our Morals and Ethics and on the other hand you say society is apparently made up of lots of smaller factions who agree on certain principles. So which is it? Don't the factions further divide until you are left with 350 million societies of one? At that point we are all the way back to everybody coming up with their own morality.

It doesn't even seem you can point to your society as a standard for your moral code.

Message edited by author 2006-08-12 15:16:23.

08/12/2006 03:18:31 PM · #785

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
....Might Equals Right in your world.

Not in MY world. In THE world.

I disagree. Had the Nazi's won and taken over Europe it still wouldn't have made their genocide Right. They would have been Wrong. No matter how many people in the world are convinced 2+2=5, it isn't so.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

08/12/2006 10:37:26 PM · #786

Originally posted by yanko:

The constitution in this country IS an absolute standard. SCOTUS rules on cases based on it's constitutionality and nothing else. If it finds something to be "constitutional" then it means it is permissible according to the constitution, a.k.a. the absolute standard.

Would that what you say were so - but it is, unfortunately, not so...

In 2005, in remarks to the members of the American Society of International Law, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that as a justice she considers foreign laws â�� not just U.S. laws and its Constitution - in forming her legal opinions.

In 2003, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor openly stated that the court should look abroad for judicial guidance. She indicated that she and the High Court had been influenced in recent rulings:

She cited foreign laws as having helped the Court rule that executing mentally retarded individuals was illegal.

She also said that the Court relied on European Court decisions when it struck down Texas' law outlawing sodomy or sex between adults of the same gender.

So, unfortunately, it would appear that SCOTUS does NOT view the Constitution as absolute, and does NOT rule on cases based on their constitutionality and nothing else.

08/12/2006 11:06:40 PM · #787

You're right. In theory it should be the absolute standard but in actuality it isn't. However, I would categorize that as a failing of the justices more than anything else. It's no different than priests who fail to adhere to the bible's teachings. As history has shown time and time again, people are fallible and that may be the only true absolute in all of this.

08/12/2006 11:14:58 PM · #788

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Had the Nazi's won and taken over Europe it still wouldn't have made their genocide Right. They would have been Wrong. No matter how many people in the world are convinced 2+2=5, it isn't so.

It would have been right to them and wrong to us (just as it was then). Fortunately, they lost. We look at the Taliban and view their extreme moral standards as "wrong," so you might expect the removal of such oppression to be greeted with open arms. Surprise! Years later there are still Afghans blowing up schools and stuggling to return to the old ways of no music, no schools, no sports, no freedom, no fun. Suppose you gathered 50,000 Afghans who prefer that lifestyle and put them on an island all by themselves. Do you have the right or obligation to do ANYTHING other than say, "my society says it isn't ok. We all got together over here, and well, we just think it's wrong"...?

2+2 is math and can be proven to the point of no rebuttal. Not so with morals or religion, which DEPEND on the fact that they can't be proven. There must be enough ambiguity to allow revised interpretations when new discoveries or shifts in popular opinion conflict with accepted doctrine or the religion would fail. Three different popes declared that the idea of the earth orbiting the sun was absurd and false. Oops. The church has yet to officially overturn that position (yikes). Pope John Paul II revised the church's position on Darwinian evolution in 1996 to be in favor of the theory. So much for past interpretations.

Oh, and Yanko... the constitution is a standard, but hardly absolute. If it were, then nobody would care who was appointed to the Supreme Court. Instead, the constitution "changes" with amendments and reinterpretations. Tough moral choices like abortion, the death penalty, gambling and segregation may be constitutional one decade and not in the next. Alchohol was delared "bad" by the 18th amendment. The 21st amendment said "nevermind." Absolute standards don't do that.

08/13/2006 12:11:41 AM · #789

At the end of the day Shannon, your argument just doesn't hold water in reality. Nobody acts like you say we should.

Let me quote the first two paragraphs of Lewis' Mere Christianity. He much more eloquently states what I have been trying to say:

Let's see if I can just cut and paste it from somewhere...hmmm...ok, here we go:

Originally posted by C.S. Lewis, the wise:

Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?' - 'That's my seat, I was there first' - 'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm' - 'Why should you shove in first?' - 'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine' - 'Come on, you promised.' People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard.' Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Like it or not, we see evidence of this every day, and the ideas of right and wrong don't come merely from society as you claim. The same arguments occur between people of different nationalities, ethnicities, etc. As long as they speak the same language (and even if they don't) a Swede and a Mongol can argue about sharing a meal. We may all have a differing take on exactly what those rules are (and are splintered into the billions and billions of societies of one) but in the end there is a standard which you can line everybody up in descending order of "most like" to "least like". We act like this is so because we know it our hearts it is so.

Let's see, I think there are a number of people reading along in this thread. Show of hands from those who agree with Scalvert that no morality is superior to another. That the morals of 2006 US of A and the 1943 Third Reich and Stalinist Russia and Old Testament Judaism are only different, but to talk of better or worse is to talk nonsense.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

08/13/2006 12:44:53 AM · #790

I've been trying to read along, but for the life of me can't quite figure out what exactly is being debated.

Your query, Doc, if I read this right, is are all moralities equal or some more equal than others? I would wager that every man believes his morality is the right one - maybe not better or worse, but right.

Do I think that my society and its attending morals, which frown upon killing people, are better than a society's where killing people is an honorable "task"? Yes but that's based on me being raised in my society. Who knows what I'd think if that weren't the case.

And I have no idea if this has anything to do with the discussion at hand... :-)

08/13/2006 12:51:55 AM · #791

Originally posted by scalvert:

Oh, and Yanko... the constitution is a standard, but hardly absolute. If it were, then nobody would care who was appointed to the Supreme Court. Instead, the constitution "changes" with amendments and reinterpretations. Tough moral choices like abortion, the death penalty, gambling and segregation may be constitutional one decade and not in the next. Alchohol was delared "bad" by the 18th amendment. The 21st amendment said "nevermind." Absolute standards don't do that.

What you call changes I call interpretations of an existing standard.
In the case of abortion the justices ruled that it was ALREADY protected by the constitution. If you read Roe vs. Wade the justices ruled that abortion falls under the "right to privacy", which is already protected by the constitution. So the standard didn't change only clarification of the issue brought to the court. That's how the system is suppose to work. Not saying it does all the time as people are fallible and prohibition is an example of that.

08/13/2006 12:52:52 AM · #792

Originally posted by Melethia:

I have no idea if this has anything to do with the discussion at hand... :-)

It pretty much nails exactly what I've been trying to explain to Achoo. What's right to me isn't necessarily right to you.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Nobody acts like you say we should.

Hogwash. People act like I say they do (not should), and I gave you historical examples of each. Lewis' error is that most people meeting face to face are from similar cultures and thus share similar ideas of right and wrong. Around here, we get offended if someone takes our seat or breaks in line, but in other cultures breaking in line is the norm (and totally expected). Try preaching your sense of morality in Iran and see how long you live.

The idea that one morality is better than another is relative no matter how much you may fantasize otherwise. History proves it repeatedly. A forum of skinheads would indeed find the morals of Hitler or Stalin "better," but the vast majority in this country at this time wouldn't. Ask your average 1942 German (or a 2006 member of Hezbollah) if killing a Jew is "right," and you probably won't like the answer. Think you could talk them out of it?

08/13/2006 12:55:58 AM · #793

Originally posted by Melethia:

You are pretty close yanko. We're debating the following points (which form an argument):

1) A theist's worldview can logically support the idea of an absolute standard for morality.

2) An atheist's worldview cannot logically support that idea.

3) Nobody acts like they believe an absolute standard for morality doesn't exist.

4) Therefore, atheists act one way and believe another.

08/13/2006 12:58:10 AM · #794

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by scalvert:
the constitution "changes" with amendments and reinterpretations.

What you call changes I call interpretations of an existing standard.

That's what I called them too. ;-)

If a new group of justices rule abortion unconstitutional 2 years from now, then so much for your "already protected" statement. If that sounds farfetched, then why does that exact scenario make headlines when Bush appoints justices?

08/13/2006 01:19:31 AM · #795

I'm reading Achoo's positions as:

1) God is the absolute standard of morality- despite the fact that He gives apparently conflicting instructions, and the only guidelines for that standard are ancient texts that people have at some time interpreted to fit opposing sides of just about any issue you can think of.

2) Atheists have NO standard of morality (an absurd notion).

3) The fact that everybody has personal standards of conduct is somehow evidence that everyone believes an ABSOLUTE standard exists ouside of those personal beliefs. Nevermind that you'd be hard pressed to find even two people with exactly the same standards across the board.

4) All athiests don't have a single ideal of perfection, yet they have personal ideals, so this is somehow hypocrisy.

The one thing I think we CAN agree on is that the debate is going nowhere and at this point a total waste of time an energy. :-/

Message edited by author 2006-08-13 01:27:09.

08/13/2006 01:20:17 AM · #796

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by scalvert:
the constitution "changes" with amendments and reinterpretations.

What you call changes I call interpretations of an existing standard.

That's what I called them too. ;-)

If a new group of justices rule abortion unconstitutional 2 years from now, then so much for your "already protected" statement. If that sounds farfetched, then why does that exact scenario make headlines when Bush appoints justices?

IF an argument can be made that abortion is indeed unconstitional i.e. not protected under the constitution then it should be overturned however that argument may very well not exist. Maybe someone could argue that the unborn has rights protected by the constitution and therefore supercedes that of the mother but they would have to show how that is reflected in the constitution.

Of course it could get overturn for any reason due to a "stacked" SCOTUS but again that would be the results of abuse rather than a changing standard, IMO. In fact last I checked the majority of Americans didn't support overturning Roe vs Wade.

08/13/2006 01:23:38 AM · #797

Let me add, the core principles this country was founded on i.e. "life, liberty and The pursuit of happiness" which the Declaration of Independence stated and the constitution upholds still remains today some two centuries later. That's the mark of an absolute standard if I ever saw one.

Message edited by author 2006-08-13 01:24:14.

08/13/2006 01:24:21 AM · #798

Originally posted by yanko:

...last I checked the majority of Americans didn't support overturning Roe vs Wade.

50 years ago, you could say the same thing about blacks voting. 100 years ago, you could say the same thing about women voting. Times change, people change, laws change, standards change.

08/13/2006 01:25:42 AM · #799

Originally posted by yanko:

"All men are created equal" didn't work out so well for blacks during most of that time. :-/