Christianity/Catholisim - DPChallenge Forums

04/13/2009 02:21:01 AM · #376

Let me ask another questions (and this is to anybody). When a Moral Relativist and a Moral Universalist meet and the Relativist tells the Universalist "It is wrong to tell someone else what is right and wrong." Is that paradoxical? That's a nut I'm not sure how the Relativist cracks?

04/13/2009 02:24:38 AM · #377

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
This unrelenting attitude that people who have a different view of God than you are just taking the easy way out or using God when he is convenient is just plain wrong.

I'm open to correction. I've only sorta gotten your impression of God. You aren't really an atheist, but any sort of personal God is also out. You do seem to be a Deist, until you start talking about him telling people to stop at a store so they can get involved with a man there. That seems too personal for Deism. If you are willing, answer these questions as quickly or longly (is that even a word?) as you like:

1) Is there a Supreme Being (I'm not talking any flavor here, a la Christianity)?
2) Is he personal (that is, interactive)?
3) Does he care about morality?

Pardon the "he", I'm just using the male pronoun out of convention.

The answer to all of these is. I don't know, nor does anyone else. I guess that is why you are so frustrated with my arguments. I speak in ifs. If God exists then... If he cares about morality then... But I'll try to answer these questions anyway based on what I believe.

1. No, I do not believe in the Christian version of a supreme being. I don't claim to KNOW. I just don't believe it myself.

once this answer is no the rest are no by default but I'll go on.

My view of "GOD" is abstract and encompasses things that could be labeled as many different ideas and does not necessarily have to be a "being" at all. I once had a science teacher that said if the Big Bang is true, perhaps god is the entity that made nothing into something. The psychic who wrote the book considered her intuition "God". One of my best friends looks out on to nature and says this is "God". Jeb said the he heard from God.

I allow for people to define god the way they choose. So when I say that "god" asked her to go to that store, I do so because that was the wording she chose. Perhaps it was his energy or pheromones or something about his brain waves that took her there and there was no supreme being involved at all. Perhaps Jeb was just having a personal insight where his own conscious was coming through louder than normal. I don't know. I can't speak for anyone. I don't know. But I don't know what word to use to avoid confusion with the Christian God and all the assumptions attached to that god.

As for me. I've had moments of connection with the world, moments of intuition, moments where a small voice told me what to do (metaphorical "voice", as in a thought), but I've never thought I had an experience with an interactive Christian-type God.

And as far as morality goes... it doesn't matter if "he" cares about morals or not. Hrmm that didn't come out right... not that it doesn't matter, just that, EVEN IF he does care, and EVEN IF he is interactive about it, how do you know who to believe once its out of his hands and into ours? How do you know who is going to safely deliver the message without any personal interference? And how do we know the message wasn't a complete fabrication? And then EVEN IF it all comes to us correctly, how do we know we are going to receive it correctly?

I don't know, you don't know, Billy Bob doesn't know, the Pope doesn't know. But if someone wants to think they know for their own piece of mind, I'm not going to try and stop them.

So I guess to put a long story short. I'm in the non-box box. Is there a name for that? I guess agnostic but I think most people don't really know what that really means.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/13/2009 02:36:58 AM · #378

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The statement seems paradoxical but Moral Relativism allows for exceptions.

In any case, I don't think that statement is what the relativists here are trying to say and is overly simplistic. I think more accurately "It is wrong to tell someone else what is right and wrong based solely on your opinion of the opinion of a Supreme Being that cannot speak for itself."

ie: It's ok to tell someone its wrong to murder because someone will lose their life and many people will be affected and hurt by it. It's not ok to tell someone its wrong to eat pork because God said they are going to hell if they do.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/13/2009 02:59:43 AM · #379

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Most religions primarily rely on copies of translations of written accounts of word of mouth stories of humans claiming to know what a being from another dimension said or wants. That's far less evidence than you would likely demand of even the most trivial claim in any arena outside of religious indoctrination, yet many devote their whole lives to it.

I've made this argument before (i.e. the bolded part) but all I've gotten were cricket sounds much like my earlier post about asking the good Doc to elaborate on using logic and reason only to ascertain actual knowledge from outside of that bloody boxcar.

Ya, that was too early in the day and I had family here. I think we can use the String Theory as an example. String Theory postulates that there are more dimensions than we are aware. (10, 11, or 26, I'm not sure and can't keep up.) These dimensions are unaccessible to us, yet we can postulate they exist because String Theory describes our known universe very well (at least when talking about very small portions of it) and requires these extra dimensions. Logical deduction can be made, therefore, that these unseen dimensions may truly exist. Now I grant you this type of "proof" is not as visceral and satisfying as the apple dropping on Newton's head, but it may be the only type we can get. (I'm also not taking this example further than it should. We do not have "proof" of these hidden dimensions yet because String Theory is still a theory in progress.)

The Multiverse would, of course, be another example that we may be able to logic toward, but never have direct access to.

Umm so what is outside of the boxcar again? Strings? Seriously that's not only unsatisfactory but it fails to even address the issue at hand (i.e. knowledge about the outside of the boxcar). You do know String Theory is an attempt to describe the nature of this world, and not what lies outside of it, right? The extra dimensions it theorizes are supposedly so incredibly small and compacted that we can't see it. If true this theory tells us nothing about those extra dimensions (only that they are needed) so using this theory to explain what is outside of the boxcar doesn't work. There's also another problem and that is if you are going to use theories that try to explain our own universe you have to resolve the need of that theory relying on past knowledge acquired via the scientific method since you claim you can acquire knowledge of the outside world without gathering observable, empirical or measurable evidence.

ETA: As for the Multiverse theory well that has as much validity as a theory that suggests the world rests on the back of a turtle. Again we are back at the point of it just being imagination, nothing more.

Message edited by author 2009-04-13 03:36:20.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/13/2009 09:14:54 AM · #380

Originally posted by yanko:

You do know String Theory is an attempt to describe the nature of this world, and not what lies outside of it, right?

What Yanko said. Length, width, depth, time, plus 7 or more subatomic dimensions too tiny to detect supposedly provide a mathematical model for OUR universe (the real world). The example does not suppose that magical beings might live in the "depth" dimension, nor how one could be privy to detailed knowledge or direct quotes of a being living in an inaccessible dimension.

Message edited by author 2009-04-13 09:19:53.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/13/2009 10:40:42 AM · #381

There was an interesting post a couple of pages back by DrAchoo to which I have not seen a satisfactory response.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think you guys both miss my point which is one I've tried over time to repeatedly make on Rant. ... "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."

...In my view, Shannon's link was suddenly interjecting the tools of Science into a conversation that needs the tools of Philosophy. ... Religion falls squarely in this realm and your laws do not apply

Rather than seeing this as an issue of science vs the scientifically inexplicable, consider it as the rational approach vs the irrational. All issues can be looked at rationally - including emotions, purpose, meaning, and the extent to which concepts are relevant in any context (eg "purpose" cannot necessarily be attributed to everything). Science is just one tool of rational enquiry.

Religion is almost always irrational: at its heart, the reasoning behind religious instruction is "god made it so" or "god says so". This is arbitrary and highly unsatisfactory to the rationally minded.

Ironically given that you raised it, philosophy tends towards rational enquiry of the moral realm. In your example around abortion, philosophical logic puzzles can form part of a rational approach. However, deciding ultimately that it is "wrong because god commands it so" is a religious response to a moral question and it is incompatible with philosophy and rational thought.

Equating the two in any sense is very wrong.

An example that highlights the distinction is when a bible-follower tries to justify the commandment against eating shellfish by pointing out how sensible this was in the middle east two thousand years ago for health reasons. The sense of it in context is unquestioned; indeed, this is a rational explanation for the social rule. The irrational bit is saying that we should still not eat shellfish because "god commanded it", even after the invention of refrigeration.

04/13/2009 10:50:36 AM · #382

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by yanko:
You do know String Theory is an attempt to describe the nature of this world, and not what lies outside of it, right?

What Yanko said. Length, width, depth, time, plus 7 or more subatomic dimensions too tiny to detect supposedly provide a mathematical model for OUR universe (the real world). The example does not suppose that magical beings might live in the "depth" dimension, nor how one could be privy to detailed knowledge or direct quotes of a being living in an inaccessible dimension.

Whoa. I never said Leprechauns were hiding in the 7th dimension. :P Richard specifically directed me to "use logic and reason to acquire actual knowledge of the outside of that boxcar." The "boxcar" represents the limitation to Scientific inquiry. Remember that. You guys keep changing the boxcar to simply represent our Universe. Extra dimensions that are beyond our ability to measure and see and touch would qualify, yet String Theory says they should be there. Even the Strings themselves, as Richard postulated, are likely so small as to be outside our practical boxcar (theoretically if you had a particle accelerator the size of the solar system you could do the experiment to find physical evidence of them).

Nobody was bringing magic beings into this portion of the conversation. We were just looking for examples where logic trumped empiric experimentation in providing knowledge.

(I quoted Shannon because his post was shorter yank. I'm not ignoring you.)

04/13/2009 10:54:42 AM · #383

Originally posted by Matthew:

Religion is almost always irrational: at its heart, the reasoning behind religious instruction is "god made it so" or "god says so". This is arbitrary and highly unsatisfactory to the rationally minded.

I'll quote thos part of your post to sum it up. I disagree. What you are saying here, to me, is that the axiomatic roots of religion feel wrong to you. All philosophical positions have axioms that are taken as self-evident truth. Rationality is merely the logical application of those axioms. Religion, therefore, can be as rational or irrational as any other philosophical construct.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/13/2009 11:01:29 AM · #384

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let me ask another questions (and this is to anybody). When a Moral Relativist and a Moral Universalist meet and the Relativist tells the Universalist "It is wrong to tell someone else what is right and wrong." Is that paradoxical? That's a nut I'm not sure how the Relativist cracks?

The statement seems paradoxical but Moral Relativism allows for exceptions.

In any case, I don't think that statement is what the relativists here are trying to say and is overly simplistic. I think more accurately "It is wrong to tell someone else what is right and wrong based solely on your opinion of the opinion of a Supreme Being that cannot speak for itself."

ie: It's ok to tell someone its wrong to murder because someone will lose their life and many people will be affected and hurt by it. It's not ok to tell someone its wrong to eat pork because God said they are going to hell if they do.

You aren't really getting out of the box Relativism traps you in. Relativism says, "what's right for me is not necessarily right for you". Therefore, we should agree, that a Relativist should not say, "It's wrong for you to do X". You can make the X as complicated or simple as you want, it still is antithetical to the Relativist's position. What the Relativist could say is, "I believe it is wrong for you to do X" (X could be wrong for you to "tell other people what is right and what is wrong".) However, when the Universalist responds, "Well, I believe it is right to tell other people what is right and what is wrong." there is no reply. You are at loggerheads.

The Universalist, on the other hand, has a bit more wiggle room. He does not need to add the "I believe" portion to remain consistent to his position. The statement, "It is right to tell you what is right and wrong." IS his position.

EDIT: I just realized that "wrong" in your post could have two meanings. Either morally wrong, which I addressed above, or wrong in the sense 2+2=5 is wrong. If this is the "wrong" you are using then the above wouldn't apply, but you'd be stuck with proving it is wrong. Since you hold a very weak view of epistemology (it's hard to KNOW anything), I'd think you'd have trouble doing that as well.

Message edited by author 2009-04-13 11:05:35.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/13/2009 11:31:07 AM · #385

Originally posted by escapetooz:

It's not ok to tell someone its wrong to eat pork because God said they are going to hell if they do.

This is a good place to bring up how what some people (and I'm not saying YOU do, Monica) hold up as an example of an arbitrary teaching can actually be seen, historically, as an extremely rational one. That is to say, the origin of the Jewish dietary laws lies in empirical observation of multiple instances of cause and effect.

The swine is seen as an unclean animal because, historically, a people who consumed a lot of swine were seen to have very specific (and horrible) health results. Now, in those days people didn't know from germs, microbes, whatever, so they weren't familiar with the trichinosis parasite that famously resides in swine, but they DID see its negative manifestation in swine-eaters, so they put pork on the do-not-consume list. Along with shellfish, for obvious reasons in pre-refrigeration days. And so forth and so on.

Makes all kinds of sense, doesn't it?

R.

Message edited by author 2009-04-13 11:31:34.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/13/2009 12:23:43 PM · #386

Originally posted by Matthew:

An example that highlights the distinction is when a bible-follower tries to justify the commandment against eating shellfish by pointing out how sensible this was in the middle east two thousand years ago for health reasons. The sense of it in context is unquestioned; indeed, this is a rational explanation for the social rule. The irrational bit is saying that we should still not eat shellfish because "god commanded it", even after the invention of refrigeration.

I tried asking the same thing a bit back with the ergotism thing.....and its relevance in today's society versus premarital sex.

I got no response/opinions about the evolution of societal thought that may oppose the written biblical laws.

It's funny how the term cherry picking keeps being ascribed to the followers of the Bible because to those of us who question everything, it seems that either you buy into it all, or you have to accept that people are going to disagree with your take on it.....and you have to accept that if you're not going to abide by the laws as they're written.

You can't say it's okay to eat pork and shellfish now, and still take a complete hard line on other things simply because you've decided that it's okay.

I guess that's where I have the problems with the "True Meaning" part.....either it's all true, or it's all subject to discussion, and compromise.

And no, it's still not okay to covet your neighbor's......tractor, or kill people, but maybe some of the things that the followers take a hard line with ought to be discussed with the very real possibility that just like eating pork and shellfish, things have, and will, change as we grow and evolve.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/13/2009 12:36:33 PM · #387

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

And it didn't have anything to do with the cloven hoof thing, right?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

The swine is seen as an unclean animal because, historically, a people who consumed a lot of swine were seen to have very specific (and horrible) health results. Now, in those days people didn't know from germs, microbes, whatever, so they weren't familiar with the trichinosis parasite that famously resides in swine, but they DID see its negative manifestation in swine-eaters, so they put pork on the do-not-consume list. Along with shellfish, for obvious reasons in pre-refrigeration days. And so forth and so on.

Makes all kinds of sense, doesn't it?

R.

Nobody's disputing the the natural evolution of change with things as simple as medical knowledge and refrigeration that it doesn't make perfect sense to eat shellfish and pork now, not to mention that we know about mold and rye seed.

This also means that you have to be open to the possibilities that other things should be looked at for purposes of the evolution of society and thought as well.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/13/2009 12:57:53 PM · #388

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Along with shellfish, for obvious reasons in pre-refrigeration days. And so forth and so on.

Makes all kinds of sense, doesn't it?

R.

So, was this a socially responsible message incorporated by the authors and wisemen of the tribe 4-6000 years ago, or was it the word and commandment of God?

I have no problem with us being aware of hygiene issues in ancient history. I do have an issue with moral and social issues of 6-2000 years ago being represented as being current and religiously binding.

04/13/2009 01:09:10 PM · #389

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The "boxcar" represents the limitation to Scientific inquiry. Remember that.

And you're missing this: any "revelation" must involve an interaction with the physical world (auditory, visual, electromagnetic waves, whatever), and that's NOT outside the possibility of scientific enquiry. Ultimately, the whole argument of religion is a matter of determining and following what a god wants when there is no basis for actually knowing that a god exists, much less what it might want. Whatever can be perceived can be studied scientifically, and any revelation clear enough to relay descriptive details and direct quotes is a whole lotta' perceiving. It's like several people in the boxcar loudly proclaiming the critical need to obey their parents, avoid work on Sundays, and eat lots of fish so their ghosts will be graced with flame resistant underwear when they meet the invisible, intangible, silent dragon they know waits for them beyond those walls. "Hey, while we're at it, let's criticize the diggers studying the barrier for their refusal to embrace dragonism, bicker amongst ourselves over the correct type of fish to be eaten, and pity those foolish people over there as they prepare to meet the giant ground sloth they believe awaits them." Riiiight. Pass the shovel, please.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

the origin of the Jewish dietary laws lies in empirical observation of multiple instances of cause and effect... Makes all kinds of sense, doesn't it?

Yes, it makes all kinds of sense that people reached the conclusion that shellfish or swine shouldn't be eaten through empirical observation. A claim of, "God said so" is not required, and the idea that all swine and shellfish are unclean was patently false even at the time. It's the same sort of rational logic that led people to believe lightning bolts were thrown by Zeus to smite people.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/13/2009 01:17:05 PM · #390

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "boxcar" represents the limitation to Scientific inquiry. Remember that.

And you're missing this: any "revelation" must involve an interaction with the physical world (auditory, visual, electromagnetic waves, whatever), and that's NOT outside the possibility of scientific enquiry. Ultimately, the whole argument of religion is a matter of determining and following what a god wants when there is no basis for actually knowing that a god exists, much less what it might want. Whatever can be perceived can be studied scientifically, and any revelation clear enough to relay descriptive details and direct quotes is a whole lotta' perceiving. It's like several people in the boxcar loudly proclaiming the critical need to obey their parents, avoid work on Sundays, and eat lots of fish so their ghosts will be graced with flame resistant underwear when they meet the invisible, intangible, silent dragon they know waits for them beyond those walls. "Hey, while we're at it, let's criticize the diggers studying the barrier for their refusal to embrace dragonism, bicker amongst ourselves over the correct type of fish to be eaten, and pity those foolish people over there as they prepare to meet the giant ground sloth they believe awaits them." Riiiight. Pass the shovel, please.

Come on Shannon, be reasonable. You always break down at this point and start saying stuff like this. There is information available outside scientific inquiry. You didn't even address the extra dimensions or the Multiverse. If you want a pure example, just take the discipline of Mathematics. All information gained in that field is gained through logic. Mathematics is pure logic. It has unproven axioms like all logical constructs (If A=B then B=A), and knowledge is not furthered through experimentation and observation. In my analogy, information gained through Mathematics lies outside the boxcar.

Message edited by author 2009-04-13 13:17:39.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/13/2009 01:20:09 PM · #391

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
the origin of the Jewish dietary laws lies in empirical observation of multiple instances of cause and effect... Makes all kinds of sense, doesn't it?

Yes, it makes all kinds of sense that people reached the conclusion that shellfish or swine shouldn't be eaten through empirical observation. A claim of, "God said so" is not required, and the idea that all swine and shellfish are unclean was patently false even at the time. It's the same sort of rational logic that led people to believe lightning bolts were thrown by Zeus to smite people.

That really isn't the point. When you're told as a child not to take candy from strangers, it's not because all strangers will kidnap you and dismember you; it's because you have to protect yourself against the ones that DO. As for a claim of "God said so!" not being required, I respectfully submit that absent a scientific framework for the proscription, and given the lack of sophistication of the average citizen at that time, the ONLY way of getting these dietary proscriptions enforced (for the good of the community, mind you) was to codify thyem within the religious framework.

R.

04/13/2009 01:24:39 PM · #392

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

There is information available outside scientific inquiry. You didn't even address the extra dimensions or the Multiverse. If you want a pure example, just take the discipline of Mathematics. All information gained in that field is gained through logic...

There is conjecture and imagination outside scientific inquiry, but unless it's grounded in some kind of actual evidence, that's all it is. Yanko already covered the Multiverse, and all information gained through mathematics is not an abstract thought experiment. You start by counting on your fingers (a concrete, repeatable observation) and work from there.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/13/2009 01:32:23 PM · #393

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

As for a claim of "God said so!" not being required, I respectfully submit that absent a scientific framework for the proscription, and given the lack of sophistication of the average citizen at that time, the ONLY way of getting these dietary proscriptions enforced (for the good of the community, mind you) was to codify thyem within the religious framework.

So cavemen and people who didn't have a bible declaring shellfish bad would just keep right on eating the stuff even as they watched others get sick and die from doing so? Mmm, hmm. Few animals are that stupid, let alone humans.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/13/2009 01:42:29 PM · #394

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
As for a claim of "God said so!" not being required, I respectfully submit that absent a scientific framework for the proscription, and given the lack of sophistication of the average citizen at that time, the ONLY way of getting these dietary proscriptions enforced (for the good of the community, mind you) was to codify thyem within the religious framework.

So cavemen and people who didn't have a bible declaring shellfish bad would just keep right on eating the stuff even as they watched others get sick and die from doing so? Mmm, hmm. Few animals are that stupid, let alone humans.

Aw, c'mon Shannon. Stop dodging. That actually WAS a problem. It's actually TRUE that one of the ways the Jewish people survived and prospered is that they were ahead of the curve on this. And it's actually TRUE that for most of human history, the moral codes (if youw ant to call them that) were established/nurtured/enforced by the shamans/priests of the tribes.

What's your POINT, man? Is it that we don't need these things anymore? That's a defensible position, sure. But why are you beating up on history, man? The bottom line is that this actually *worked* for millennia of human history, OK?

R.

04/13/2009 01:52:59 PM · #395

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There is information available outside scientific inquiry. You didn't even address the extra dimensions or the Multiverse. If you want a pure example, just take the discipline of Mathematics. All information gained in that field is gained through logic...

There is conjecture and imagination outside scientific inquiry, but unless it's grounded in some kind of actual evidence, that's all it is. Yanko already covered the Multiverse, and all information gained through mathematics is not an abstract thought experiment. You start by counting on your fingers (a concrete, repeatable observation) and work from there.

Using experiment and observation (or your fingers if you'd like), give the value of X in the following equation:

3i+1=X where i equals the square root of negative one.

Hemineglect, my friend. Hemineglect.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/13/2009 01:54:54 PM · #396

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
It's not ok to tell someone its wrong to eat pork because God said they are going to hell if they do.

This is a good place to bring up how what some people (and I'm not saying YOU do, Monica) hold up as an example of an arbitrary teaching can actually be seen, historically, as an extremely rational one. That is to say, the origin of the Jewish dietary laws lies in empirical observation of multiple instances of cause and effect.

The swine is seen as an unclean animal because, historically, a people who consumed a lot of swine were seen to have very specific (and horrible) health results. Now, in those days people didn't know from germs, microbes, whatever, so they weren't familiar with the trichinosis parasite that famously resides in swine, but they DID see its negative manifestation in swine-eaters, so they put pork on the do-not-consume list. Along with shellfish, for obvious reasons in pre-refrigeration days. And so forth and so on.

Makes all kinds of sense, doesn't it?

R.

Oh but you misunderstand. It DID make perfect sense. There is no debating the usefulness at that time. I am well aware of the history. The issue is when we have moved beyond that scientifically and have this knowledge of why "God" said so and that it no longer applies. In today's world, ignoring the science of the fact that eating pork is no longer detrimental to your health (at least not any more than most other meats) and still saying it is wrong because God said so is illogical.

NOW, there are many reasons in this physical rational world as to why some people might think it is bad to eat pork (hence we have vegetarians and vegans), but for that they have information to back up their claims.

People are stuck in the "morals" of the past when they no longer apply today.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/13/2009 01:58:12 PM · #397

Originally posted by scalvert:

Really? Ever seen the results of of horse allowed to eat as much grain as it wants? They die. My dog once ate a five pound wheel of blue cheese in less than a minuet, the phrase sick as a dog comes to mind. Do you think it caused the rest of the dogs to go dairy free? As far as let alone humans, wander down to your local Dairy Queen some time and watch the folks there digging their graves with their teeth.

From the view point of a cultural anthropology , all societies have their religions. These religions codify proper behavior and shape the society. I'm sure there was a time when man was free of the oppressive yoke of religion, but not since he has had language. It is the reservoir of past learning.

Message edited by author 2009-04-13 14:02:27.

04/13/2009 02:04:46 PM · #398

Originally posted by escapetooz:

NOW, there are many reasons in this physical rational world as to why some people might think it is bad to eat pork (hence we have vegetarians and vegans), but for that they have information to back up their claims.

You are kidding right? On some level their claims are going to be every bit as axiomatic as "God tells me to."

Here's another good one for you. It's a mind bender, although it has more to do with your last post rather than this one.

How do you KNOW I don't KNOW what is right and wrong?

04/13/2009 02:11:46 PM · #399

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

What's your POINT, man? Is it that we don't need these things anymore? That's a defensible position, sure. But why are you beating up on history, man? The bottom line is that this actually *worked* for millennia of human history, OK?

I was agreeing with you that "the origin of the Jewish dietary laws lies in empirical observation" rather than revelation of truth from a god. A shaman or priest in an area with high parasitic infection rates HAS to tell the people that Zeus, Horus, God, or the Great Ooga Booga has spoken and that shellfish shall not be eaten. He'd have a lot of splainin' to do if his "divine" guidance for proper living overlooked an obvious, known risk of illness!