Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

01/25/2010 08:15:58 AM · #4301

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I think that "hunting" and "gathering" both qualify as "painful toil" and "the sweat of your brow".

Back to......obviously not someone who's ever been out for a walk on a summer afternoon and stumbled upon a wild raspberry patch. Yeah......plopping down with a couple handfuls of one of the finest delicacies on earth is *such* a chore!

Yes, and the early humans just spent their days aimlessly wandering day in and day out and there was enough of an abundance of raspberry bushes to sustain groups of humans wandering around together for days at a time. Yes, that's exactly what happened. But, I wonder what they did in the winter...

Well, in this part of the world they would have gone ice fishing...:O)

Added bonus... no sweaty brows in that exercise.

Ray

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/25/2010 09:25:14 AM · #4302

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How do we go from amoral processes to moral/immoral ones? Is it just semantics? or is there something important that delineates the two?

That's where free will comes into the picture, pretty much. That's why it's important, in ethical discussions, to make a distinction between "ability to choose" and "free will". But every time I try to talk about this I get hammered on, so the heck with it :-)

R.

As I understand it, the factor that promotes "free will" beyond "ability to choose" is self-awareness. Self awareness is essentially the ability to comprehend ourselves and others objectively and includes the ability to understand that others think and what they are thinking. Animals have an ability to choose, but pretty much only humans understand the consequences and act with knowing free will.

This is pretty central to the morality + suffering arguments. Human actions are only considered immoral because we are self aware and understand the consequences of our actions. This can be seen in two key limitations relevant to the question of morality:

(i) Is the action within our conscious control? (instinctive actions are not considered moral)

(ii) Are the consequences of our action proximate and foreseeable? (unforeseeable or remote consequences do not make the action immoral)

An action is usually only immoral if we consciously act in a way that we can foresee will have inappropriate consequences.

Through no coincidence, I am sure, these concepts are also central to criminal and civil law.

Until recently, we thought that we were the only self-aware species on Earth - some people increasingly think that some other animals are self aware (orangutangs, chimps, dolphins, octupus). It is interesting to think how morality extends between self aware species - there is a greater moral qualm about inflicting suffering on a self aware creature than for species that are not.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/25/2010 09:57:41 AM · #4303

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Therefore the big bang theory is untestable.

Wrong. Large Hadron Collider.

01/25/2010 10:38:57 AM · #4304

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Asking a Christian to prove that God exists is like asking someone to prove the big bang.

The Big Bang was proven with empirical evidence in 1964. Your turn.

Oh, and here's a breakdown of problems with your post:

"you cannot use science to prove that God exists" Argument from Ignorance
"nor can you use it to prove that he doesn't." Negative Proof Fallacy
"Science cannot prove the big bang because the environment that the big bang supposedly occurred in is impossible to replicate." Fallacy of Necessity
"reason and logic do not prove anything." Straw Man (empirical evidence does)
"Asking a Christian to prove that God exists is like asking someone to prove the big bang. Either way you can call upon observation and experience, but neither can be tested." All of the above

Message edited by author 2010-01-25 11:05:25.

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/25/2010 03:16:49 PM · #4305

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Asking a Christian to prove that God exists is like asking someone to prove the big bang.

I'm not certain what world you all live in, but the proofs for God's existence happened a long time ago (1270 with Thomas Aquinas). There exists many proofs for God's existence both religious and physiological.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/25/2010 03:28:00 PM · #4306

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Asking a Christian to prove that God exists is like asking someone to prove the big bang.

I'm not certain what world you all live in, but the proofs for God's existence happened a long time ago (1270 with Thomas Aquinas). There exists many proofs for God's existence both religious and physiological.

Only if you are willing to admit tortured medieval logic into the argument. Aquinas' "cosmological argument" fails because an infinitely complex uncreated creator is a fallacy. The "degree argument" is silly. The "argument from design" is debunked by the facts of evolution (which Catholics accept).

01/25/2010 03:51:23 PM · #4307

Originally posted by Nullix:

I'm not certain what world you all live in, but the proofs for God's existence happened a long time ago (1270 with Thomas Aquinas).

Aquinas' "proofs" are all logical fallacies. They do not indicate any specific deity and their conclusions fail their own tests.

Message edited by author 2010-01-25 17:08:21.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/25/2010 05:15:26 PM · #4308

Originally posted by Nullix:

It would be great to hear what these proofs are. It seems strange that Johnny and DrAchoo have been arguing the importance of faith all this time when the scientific evidence existed all along.

Or perhaps a theological "proof" is a bit like a scientific "theory", in that a scientific "theory" is in fact proof, whereas a theological "proof" is in fact just theory.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

01/25/2010 05:31:32 PM · #4309

Originally posted by Matthew:

I think that you are quite wrong in all respects with this post.

As you say, some archeological evidence supports some of the (non-supernatural) elements of the bible - but it also disproves some supernatural parts of the bible (like the story of the great flood).

There is archeological and historical evidence to suggest that the flood actually did happen. Studies on the ancient civilization of Sumer support the idea that a major flood occurred around 3700 BC. Archeological studies on soil deposits and sedimentary layers also support the Bible's claim of a catastrophic flood. Also, other cultures have flood stories that are shockingly similar to the flood story in Genesis (Epic of Gilgamesh) which proves that Jews were not the only people that believed a great flood occurred.

Originally posted by Matthew:

One can absolutely use science to test for the presence of a god. The results demonstrate quite clearly that there is no evidence of a god intervening in the modern era in a statistically significant and measurable way. Accordingly, the science consistently demonstrates an overwhelming probability that the god as described in, say, the bible does not exist.

First, you are assuming that God intervenes in the modern era. Second, you are assuming that the fact that he hasn't intervened in obvious ways proves that he doesn't exist. This is poor logic. If you never saw Obama in person or in the media, would you call that proof that Obama doesn't exist and the USA doesn't even have a president? No.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Conversely, "theories" such as the happening of the big bang and evolution can be proven with overwhelming certainty. The evidence - literally billions or trillions of directly observable items - surrounds us constantly and consistently.

There is proof that the universe originated from one point, and that it is expanding, but there is no way to prove what that original state of the universe looked like. If you observe wave patterns in a lake, you can see where the waves originated, but you have no idea what caused the wave. Was it an impact on the surface of the water? A fish? Observing the universe allows us to develop theories based on what we see happening now, observing the present does not prove what happened in the past.

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Therefore the big bang theory is untestable.

Wrong. Large Hadron Collider.

Double Wrong. The Big Bang Theory encompasses many other unproven theories and scientific laws. The Large Hadron Collider is testing the scientific principles that are necessary for the Big Bang Theory to be true, but it is not testing the Big Bang Theory itself. If you go to the CERN website you will see that the LHC can recreate conditions similar to those that existed just after the Big Bang in order to study particle interactions. The LHC is not capable of recreated the exact conditions of the Big Bang.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Asking a Christian to prove that God exists is like asking someone to prove the big bang.

The Big Bang was proven with empirical evidence in 1964. Your turn.

Like I said above, observing the present can provide a glimpse into the past, or help us to develop theories about the past, but observation of the present cannot prove past events. Empirical or observable evidence does not prove anything about the Big Bang, it just aided in developing the theory itself. There are a slew of problems with the Big Bang Theory that will not be resolved in our lifetime. The BBT is accepted by the scientific world because it is the best explanation that anyone has been able to come up with, not because it has been proven.

George

Nikon D750

01/25/2010 05:35:00 PM · #4310

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Asking a Christian to prove that God exists is like asking someone to prove the big bang.

The Big Bang was proven with empirical evidence in 1964. Your turn.

Like I said above, observing the present can provide a glimpse into the past, or help us to develop theories about the past, but observation of the present cannot prove past events. Empirical or observable evidence does not prove anything about the Big Bang, it just aided in developing the theory itself. There are a slew of problems with the Big Bang Theory that will not be resolved in our lifetime. The BBT is accepted by the scientific world because it is the best explanation that anyone has been able to come up with, not because it has been proven.

The Big Bang theory has been supported by massive amounts of evidence. Like anything in science, it is a theory - not a law. Those who believe in the Bible consider it more than a theory, they consider it the absolute truth... without any real evidence of it being the truth. So even though the Big Bang Theory is just a theory, it has a lot more credibility because it has a lot more supporting evidence than the theory/law/fact that God exists, or that the Bible is His word, or that what is written in the Bible is the truth.

01/25/2010 05:35:26 PM · #4311

Originally posted by Matthew:

It would be great to hear what these proofs are. It seems strange that Johnny and DrAchoo have been arguing the importance of faith all this time when the scientific evidence existed all along.

The best that I can do for you is provide some convincing reasons why the Bible is reliable based on history and archeology. Once you're convinced the Bible is reliable, believing in God shouldn't be too much of a stretch. If you really want to get that far off topic, then we should start a new thread or you should PM me.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

01/25/2010 05:40:23 PM · #4312

Originally posted by george917:

So even though the Big Bang Theory is just a theory, it has a lot more credibility because it has a lot more supporting evidence than the theory/law/fact that God exists, or that the Bible is His word, or that what is written in the Bible is the truth.

I'm assuming that most people in this thread have not studied textual criticism, ancient Greek and Hebrew, Roman culture, Greek culture, Jewish culture, Palestinian culture, etc. Most people here have probably heard all about the accuracy of the Bible from critics. If you actually studied the history, language, and culture of the Bible (not it's teachings) you would realize how overwhelmingly accurate and reliable it is.

George

Nikon D750

01/25/2010 05:44:23 PM · #4313

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by george917:

So even though the Big Bang Theory is just a theory, it has a lot more credibility because it has a lot more supporting evidence than the theory/law/fact that God exists, or that the Bible is His word, or that what is written in the Bible is the truth.

I'm assuming that most people in this thread have not studied textual criticism, ancient Greek and Hebrew, Roman culture, Greek culture, Jewish culture, Palestinian culture, etc. Most people here have probably heard all about the accuracy of the Bible from critics. If you actually studied the history, language, and culture of the Bible (not it's teachings) you would realize how overwhelmingly accurate and reliable it is.

This is a logical fallacy, though I'm not sure what it's called. It goes something like "If a part of something is correct, it all must be correct." Sure, a lot of it is true. It's as if I wrote a book today about modern times and weaved in a fantasy story. I'd be talking about the War in Afghanistan, about the Haiti earthquake, about the fall of Communism 20 years ago, etc. But that doesn't mean that everything in my book is the truth. Sure, it's accurate in a lot of things... but that doesn't mean that we should believe that Moses parted the Red Sea.

ETA: Okay, so you did state that its teachings shouldn't be included in that. I'm just trying to point out that just because some of the facts are real history doesn't mean the rest of it is true as well.

Message edited by author 2010-01-25 17:45:26.

yanko

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

01/25/2010 05:50:54 PM · #4314

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Matthew:

It would be great to hear what these proofs are. It seems strange that Johnny and DrAchoo have been arguing the importance of faith all this time when the scientific evidence existed all along.

The best that I can do for you is provide some convincing reasons why the Bible is reliable based on history and archeology. Once you're convinced the Bible is reliable, believing in God shouldn't be too much of a stretch. If you really want to get that far off topic, then we should start a new thread or you should PM me.

You've already driven this thread way off topic already so you might as well just present your empirical evidence. You know you want to.

01/25/2010 06:47:16 PM · #4315

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The Big Bang Theory only states that the universe is expanding from a formerly hotter, denser state. That's it... and you don't have to replicate that original state to prove it. The theory does not say anything about causality, nor is a cause required for it to be true. Maybe the universe has always existed in some form? We don't know. Any requirement that everything must have a creator is a Special Pleading fallacy because it would also eliminate the possibility of God.

01/25/2010 06:50:48 PM · #4316

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The best that I can do for you is provide some convincing reasons why the Bible is reliable based on history and archeology.

The existence of knights or Sherwood Forest is not proof of King Arthur or Robin Hood.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/25/2010 06:52:58 PM · #4317

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

There is archeological and historical evidence to suggest that the flood actually did happen.

Undoubtedly great floods have happened. But there is no archeological evidence for a flood on the scale reported by the bible. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary - a worldwide flood did not happen.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

First, you are assuming that God intervenes in the modern era.

Yes - this is at the very least the mainstream belief - otherwise why would people pray?

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Second, you are assuming that the fact that he hasn't intervened in obvious ways proves that he doesn't exist. This is poor logic.

No - I said that there is an overwhelming probablility that the biblical God does not exist. This is a fair conclusion based on the fact that we measure many things and Christians do not appear to enjoy any statistical benefits through their choice of which god to follow.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Observing the universe allows us to develop theories based on what we see happening now, observing the present does not prove what happened in the past.

You do realise that light takes time to reach us? By building more and more powerful telescopes, we can see deeper and deeper into ancient history. For example, the Planck telescope is observing light issued just 380k years after the big bang. So it is a bit more than mere speculation.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

observation of the present cannot prove past events.

Do you see any hypocrisy in making this statement then pointing to the bible and suggesting that it is more reliable than the directly observable evidence being uncovered today?

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/25/2010 07:14:21 PM · #4318

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I'm assuming that most people in this thread have not studied textual criticism, ancient Greek and Hebrew, Roman culture, Greek culture, Jewish culture, Palestinian culture, etc...

Watch it with those assumptions, college boy.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

If you actually studied the history, language, and culture of the Bible (not it's teachings) you would realize how overwhelmingly accurate and reliable it is.

Erm... this gentleman would tend to disagree. I'll take his scholarship over anyone's slap-dash "to hell with science, imma believe what imma believe" attitude anyday.

yanko

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

01/25/2010 07:32:41 PM · #4319

Originally posted by scalvert:

Much like the Theory of Evolution, it doesn't prove or disprove God yet is all too often the bane of theists. To go back to what

johnnyphoto stated earlier, "Once you're convinced the Bible is reliable, believing in God shouldn't be too much of a stretch". The fact of the matter is the Bible, like every other holy book, isn't a reliable source of information and using it only leads to confrontations with legitimate sources. Religion would be better off welcoming science as the means to true knowledge rather than shunning it and then be forced to backpedal later.

ETA: for lousy spelling.

Message edited by author 2010-01-25 19:36:18.

yanko

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

01/25/2010 07:34:29 PM · #4320

Is there a doctor in the house? Johnny's in trouble again. :P

01/25/2010 08:50:26 PM · #4321

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The best that I can do for you is provide some convincing reasons why the Bible is reliable based on history and archeology.

The existence of knights or Sherwood Forest is not proof of King Arthur or Robin Hood.

I didn't say that the reliability proves the existence of God. I actually said the opposite. However, many people in our culture have been taught that the Bible is wildly inaccurate and that it is far from reliable. If you set those presuppositions aside and actually study the reliability of the Bible for yourself, you might find that it is actually very reliable. Once you come to that realization, it's not a big jump to believe in God. Make sense?

Originally posted by Matthew:

What? A global flood? Who told you that the flood had to be large scale? At the time the Bible was written the known world was very small. When the Bible says the whole world was flooded, it means the whole world that was known.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

First, you are assuming that God intervenes in the modern era.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Yes - this is at the very least the mainstream belief - otherwise why would people pray?

God intervenes personally, and many people have personal testimonies about how God has intervened in their lives. But God hasn't performed large scale miracles since before the time of Christ.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Do you see any hypocrisy in making this statement then pointing to the bible and suggesting that it is more reliable than the directly observable evidence being uncovered today?

No, I don't see any hypocrisy because unlike science, the goal of Christianity is not to prove that it's real. The goal of Christianity is to believe it, not to prove it.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I'm assuming that most people in this thread have not studied textual criticism, ancient Greek and Hebrew, Roman culture, Greek culture, Jewish culture, Palestinian culture, etc...

Originally posted by Louis:

Watch it with those assumptions, college boy.

That's graduate school boy to you Mr. Louis.
Edit: All I'm saying is that many people here talk about the Bible like they know it. If you only knew how little you actually know about the Bible...
I will read your linked article later.

Originally posted by scalvert:

The fact of the matter is the Bible, like every other holy book, isn't a reliable source of information and using it only leads to confrontations with legitimate sources. Religion would be better off welcoming science as the means to true knowledge rather than shunning it and then be forced to backpedal later.

The parts of the Bible that are meant to be literal and historically accurate are. Parts of the Bible are figurative. You know, "science" as you use the word refers to modern natural science. Today, science is believed to be the only way to learn truth. For most of human history, "science" simply meant "knowledge", and philosophy and religion were both considered sciences.

Message edited by author 2010-01-25 20:53:00.

01/25/2010 09:35:23 PM · #4322

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I didn't say that the reliability proves the existence of God. I actually said the opposite. If you... actually study the reliability of the Bible for yourself, you might find that it is actually very reliable. Once you come to that realization, it's not a big jump to believe in God. Make sense?

No... for three reasons. First, you offered this specifically in response to a request for proof. Second, Once you [come to the realization that the Bible is reliable], it's not a big jump to believe in God" is NOT the opposite of "reliability proves the existence of God." Either way, you're suggesting that Biblical reliability is evidence of the existence of God. Third, the whole premise is an argument from ignorance. Ehrman's work and basic comparisons of different Gospels makes it plainly apparent that the Bible is both inconsistent and filled with errors.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

A global flood? Who told you that the flood had to be large scale? At the time the Bible was written the known world was very small. When the Bible says the whole world was flooded, it means the whole world that was known.

Um... GOD said it was global in Genesis. As its creator, one would think he was familiar with the size of the earth.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

God intervenes personally, and many people have personal testimonies about how God has intervened in their lives. But God hasn't performed large scale miracles since before the time of Christ.

Matthew didn't say anything about large scale miracles. Even personal ones, such as healing or being saved from death, would show a very strong, measurable correlation with the "correct" faith. If small scale miracles have not been performed since before Christ either, then prayer would be pointless and there could never have been a resurrection or walking on water.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

unlike science, the goal of Christianity is not to prove that it's real. The goal of Christianity is to believe it, not to prove it.

Religion (and not just Christianity) assumes its conclusions are both real and unquestionable (per your earlier preference of faith over proof), whereas science accepts the possibility of being wrong.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

All I'm saying is that many people here talk about the Bible like they know it. If you only knew how little you actually know about the Bible...

Given your declaration of biblical reliability, this is going to backfire on you. Hard.

Message edited by author 2010-01-25 21:38:15.

01/25/2010 09:50:21 PM · #4323

Originally posted by scalvert:

Ehrman's work and basic comparisons of different Gospels makes it plainly apparent that the Bible is both inconsistent and filled with errors.

Of course there are errors, but none of them bring into question any of the teachings of scripture. The vast majority of the errors, are spelling errors, copying errors, translation errors, punctuation errors, grammar errors, etc... all of which can be corrected through careful textual criticism. The remaining fraction of the errors may change the meaning of a sentence slightly, but still do not bring into question any dogma or doctrine of Christianity.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Um... GOD said it was global in Genesis. As its creator, one would think he was familiar with the size of the earth.

There's no question that God knew about the size of the earth, but would the human authors that God spoke to understand it? Scripture is inspired by God, but it's still written by human hands meaning that geography is relevant.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Spoken like a true skeptic...

Originally posted by scalvert:

Given your declaration of biblical reliability, this is going to backfire on you. Hard.

Good, bring it on :)

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

01/25/2010 11:30:05 PM · #4324

Has anyone considered asking

johnnyphototo start another thread. I don't mind a slight digression... but this is nuts.

Ray

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5