| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/31/2009 10:16:20 PM · #3551 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would be interested though, in hearing Jeb define "human decency". I think it would be interesting. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Being good to, and thoughtful of, the people you live with and around, who share your journey through life. For its own sake, without the fear of reprisal for not doing so, or the promise of salvation. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not going to be able to continue this because my parents are here, but what if an individual thinks the "decent" thing to do would be to try to cure someone of their homosexuality or to prevent them from acting on their perverse desires. Obviously you would disagree with them, but what would you appeal to in your quest to try to show him the error of his ways? Anything other than your personal experience? I think Johnny is trying to get at this problem (although he's not doing an awesome job at it). |
Goes back to that imposing your will onto others. Think what you might of the way someone else lives, but who are you to decide first, that their desires are any more wrong than yours, or that you have any right to try and change them, legislate against them, or worse, speak out against them, especially when what they do with their lives affects you in no way whatsoever.
Nothing decent about that kind of behavior at all. Kinda brings us full circle, huh?
You still think you have the right to tell someone how to be, we don't.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 10:18:39 PM · #3552 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would be interested though, in hearing Jeb define "human decency". I think it would be interesting. |
Being good to, and thoughtful of, the people you live with and around, who share your journey through life. For its own sake, without the fear of reprisal for not doing so, or the promise of salvation. |
I'm not going to be able to continue this because my parents are here, but what if an individual thinks the "decent" thing to do would be to try to cure someone of their homosexuality or to prevent them from acting on their perverse desires. Obviously you would disagree with them, but what would you appeal to in your quest to try to show him the error of his ways? Anything other than your personal experience? I think Johnny is trying to get at this problem (although he's not doing an awesome job at it). |
I should just let DrAchoo do all the talking for me :) That is basically what I'm trying to say.
If human decency is what you say it is Jeb, then what if one person's idea of being good and thoughtful is lighting your house on fire to keep you warm during the winter? Is that "decent" and okay with you because the guy was being thoughtful for the sake of being thoughtful?
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You still think you have the right to tell someone how to be, we don't. |
So if nobody has the right to tell us how to be, then how can we possibly know the difference between right and wrong?
Message edited by author 2009-12-31 22:20:43. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 10:19:07 PM · #3553 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ooh. Johnny's got Jeb doing one sentence paragraphs.
I guess after JP's last post I can kiss my last reply goodbye...
I would be interested though, in hearing Jeb define "human decency". I think it would be interesting. |
I was going to ask the same!
If belief in God isn't required in order to do something decent to your fellow man, then what is required? |
Nothing. And Everything. Merely Existing. Take your pick. However, to look at the long history of humanity, and then compare it to 2000 odd years of christianity, and have the amazing fortitude to claim that IT is the sole reason for or existence of 'human decency' is so far outside the realm of reality that I can scarcely even put words to my shock. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 10:33:44 PM · #3554 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ooh. Johnny's got Jeb doing one sentence paragraphs.
I guess after JP's last post I can kiss my last reply goodbye...
I would be interested though, in hearing Jeb define "human decency". I think it would be interesting. |
I was going to ask the same!
If belief in God isn't required in order to do something decent to your fellow man, then what is required? |
Nothing. And Everything. Merely Existing. Take your pick. However, to look at the long history of humanity, and then compare it to 2000 odd years of christianity, and have the amazing fortitude to claim that IT is the sole reason for or existence of 'human decency' is so far outside the realm of reality that I can scarcely even put words to my shock. |
So where do you think the concept of human decency originated? |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 10:35:08 PM · #3555 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ooh. Johnny's got Jeb doing one sentence paragraphs.
I guess after JP's last post I can kiss my last reply goodbye...
I would be interested though, in hearing Jeb define "human decency". I think it would be interesting. |
I was going to ask the same!
If belief in God isn't required in order to do something decent to your fellow man, then what is required? |
Nothing. And Everything. Merely Existing. Take your pick. However, to look at the long history of humanity, and then compare it to 2000 odd years of christianity, and have the amazing fortitude to claim that IT is the sole reason for or existence of 'human decency' is so far outside the realm of reality that I can scarcely even put words to my shock. |
So where do you think the concept of human decency originated? |
With humanity.
*edit* Not that it MATTERS. Just know that your claims are, as Jeb said, patently absurd, and sometimes it's better to know when to stop talking.
Message edited by author 2009-12-31 22:36:36. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 10:41:08 PM · #3556 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
With humanity.
|
So the concept of human decency originated with humanity... So if I put a baby in solitary confinement without any human interaction and didn't let the person out until he/she was 20 years old, that person would have a concept of human decency? |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 10:45:51 PM · #3557 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clearly a personal choice separated from physical forces would require a supernatural explanation. Every firing of every synapse in your brain would qualify as a "physical force" so we would be talking about a dualistic "mind" controlling the physical brain. Obviously that is not possible in Materialism.
|
No matter how hard you try to make it so, atheism does not equal materialism, and the perception that you are in control of your actions does not require supernatural explanation. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 10:52:17 PM · #3558 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Just because death, destruction, and wickedness are natural has nothing to do with whether they're just. |
I think you've got it.
Justice has nothing to do with the natural world because the idea of justice comes from belief in the supernatural... |
Ai yi yi. |
What K10DGuy said. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 10:55:49 PM · #3559 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
With humanity.
|
So the concept of human decency originated with humanity... So if I put a baby in solitary confinement without any human interaction and didn't let the person out until he/she was 20 years old, that person would have a concept of human decency? |
Really? I can't even answer this question because it relies too much on your own preconception of how humanity began. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 10:56:13 PM · #3560 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So the concept of human decency originated with humanity... So if I put a baby in solitary confinement without any human interaction and didn't let the person out until he/she was 20 years old, that person would have a concept of human decency? |
Toddlers understand the general concept of fairness, and will render assistance before they can even speak. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 11:19:59 PM · #3561 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So the concept of human decency originated with humanity... So if I put a baby in solitary confinement without any human interaction and didn't let the person out until he/she was 20 years old, that person would have a concept of human decency? |
Toddlers understand the general concept of fairness, and will render assistance before they can even speak. |
Yes, because the toddler probably witnessed somebody else render assistance.
We conclude that monkeys understand fairness because Monkey A refuses one banana for clapping its hands after watching Monkey B receive two bananas for doing the same thing. If monkey A never saw monkey B receive two bananas then it would have no comparison and no concept of fairness and would probably accept the one banana.
Fairness and decency is all relative. How can you determine that something is decent unless you can compare it to something that you already know is indecent? |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 11:24:11 PM · #3562 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Toddlers understand the general concept of fairness, and will render assistance before they can even speak. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Yes, because the toddler probably witnessed somebody else render assistance.
We conclude that monkeys understand fairness because Monkey A refuses one banana for clapping its hands after watching Monkey B receive two bananas for doing the same thing. If monkey A never saw monkey B receive two bananas then it would have no comparison and no concept of fairness and would probably accept the one banana. |
You just eliminated the supernatural. Congrats.
Message edited by author 2009-12-31 23:25:10. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 11:30:14 PM · #3563 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You just eliminated the supernatural. Congrats. |
How so? |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 11:59:38 PM · #3564 |
| By insisting on solitary confinement as the control, you suggested that morality is learned through social interaction. While that's partially true (decent behavior is far more widespread than any particular religion), your explanation doesn't make sense unless the sense of morality is extant. In other words, seeing someone else render assistance or another monkey getting a disproportionate reward would not in itself identify the situation as right or wrong. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 12:21:32 AM · #3565 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Toddlers understand the general concept of fairness, and will render assistance before they can even speak. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Yes, because the toddler probably witnessed somebody else render assistance.
We conclude that monkeys understand fairness because Monkey A refuses one banana for clapping its hands after watching Monkey B receive two bananas for doing the same thing. If monkey A never saw monkey B receive two bananas then it would have no comparison and no concept of fairness and would probably accept the one banana. |
You just eliminated the supernatural. Congrats. |
A theist disproving their own beliefs? Logic is a b*tch. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 12:27:24 AM · #3566 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
By insisting on solitary confinement as the control, you suggested that morality is learned through social interaction. While that's partially true (decent behavior is far more widespread than any particular religion), your explanation doesn't make sense unless the sense of morality is extant. In other words, seeing someone else render assistance or another monkey getting a disproportionate reward would not in itself identify the situation as right or wrong. |
That's how I understood it. But I still don't see how that eliminates the supernatural. In my mind, the monkey example helps to prove the existence of the supernatural. One person (or monkey for that matter) cannot differentiate right from wrong, fair from unfair, or just from unjust without influence from something other than himself/itself. In other words, humanity cannot determine what is unjust unless God tells it what is just. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 01:03:16 AM · #3567 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I still don't see how that eliminates the supernatural. In my mind, the monkey example helps to prove the existence of the supernatural. One person (or monkey for that matter) cannot differentiate right from wrong, fair from unfair, or just from unjust without influence from something other than himself/itself. In other words, humanity cannot determine what is unjust unless God tells it what is just. |
WHAT?!?! A toddler can't render assistance, nor a monkey recognize a disproportionate reward, if there's only one of them because there's nobody to assist and no other monkey to get an unfair share. Morever, having more than one individual doesn't introduce anything supernatural! Whether it's one person or twenty, that's still just humanity. Social interaction isn't magic. By your logic, the ability to read Spanish must be supernatural because a baby raised in isolation couldn't do it. :-/
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If monkey A never saw monkey B receive two bananas then it would have no comparison and no concept of fairness and would probably accept the one banana. |
It would have no comparison and probably accept the banana... because you eliminated the unfair situation! Duh. Avoiding the test does nothing to address whether the concept is understood, though. Other animals tested in the same situation don't refuse the reward when they see another individual getting more, so this species clearly understands when it's getting stiffed.
Message edited by author 2010-01-01 01:24:59. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 01:59:25 AM · #3568 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I still don't see how that eliminates the supernatural. In my mind, the monkey example helps to prove the existence of the supernatural. One person (or monkey for that matter) cannot differentiate right from wrong, fair from unfair, or just from unjust without influence from something other than himself/itself. In other words, humanity cannot determine what is unjust unless God tells it what is just. |
WHAT?!?! A toddler can't render assistance, nor a monkey recognize a disproportionate reward, if there's only one of them because there's nobody to assist and no other monkey to get an unfair share. Morever, having more than one individual doesn't introduce anything supernatural! Whether it's one person or twenty, that's still just humanity. Social interaction isn't magic. By your logic, the ability to read Spanish must be supernatural because a baby raised in isolation couldn't do it. :-/
|
We're not on the same page. I can see how my wording of the above may have led you to believe that I was implying monkey B was the supernatural, but that's not what I meant. The monkey example involves more than just social interaction between two monkeys. What about the scientists that are providing the rewards? Without the scientists offering some reward, we are left with two monkeys clapping their hands. No scientists and no reward means the monkeys have no concept of fairness. Likewise, no God and no hope for heavenly reward means humans have no concept of justice.
edit: Actually, without the scientists the monkeys probably wouldn't even be clapping their hands. They'd just be two completely normal monkeys no different than wild monkeys
Message edited by author 2010-01-01 02:19:29. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 03:19:39 AM · #3569 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clearly a personal choice separated from physical forces would require a supernatural explanation. Every firing of every synapse in your brain would qualify as a "physical force" so we would be talking about a dualistic "mind" controlling the physical brain. Obviously that is not possible in Materialism.
|
No matter how hard you try to make it so, atheism does not equal materialism, and the perception that you are in control of your actions does not require supernatural explanation. |
I just don't know how to get through to you. Talk to Shutterpuppy, he can at least outline the "free will requires the supernatural argument" because I know he understands it.
Your statement that "the perception that you are in control does not require supernatural explanations" is true. But that wasn't what I was saying, was it? I was saying the ACTUAL control requires supernatural explanations. Don't twist my words.
And atheism does not equal materialism, but I know you well enough, for example, to know you qualify as both.
Johnny, don't listen about the monkeys. It's a bogus study. I read it and it's the grasping of straws by someone looking for a good post doc. We've talked all this stuff to death before. They won't hear you. Shannon will totally ignore you and Jeb will talk himself in circles without realizing it.
Message edited by author 2010-01-01 03:21:00. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 03:24:12 AM · #3570 |
Here's my original post on the monkey experiment. Happy New Years!
You should read the actual article. It's pretty easy to poke holes in things like this. I gotta scratch my head when a study can get away with something like this:
"Subjects showing an extreme side-bias during a given test (i.e., choosing either right or left >85% of the trials regardless of token), were tested a second time on a different day. The latter data were included in statistical analyses regardless of whether or not the individual persisted in her side-bias. Extremely side-biased performances were excluded from the graphs in this paper, however."
Translation: If the money was amoral, we gave him a second chance. If he was still amoral, we counted it...except in the graphs. We wanted those to look good.
Maybe those were the atheist monkeys... ;)
Another BIG issue, in my mind, was a preconceived bias which is revealed in the following paragraph:
"The first such study yielded ambiguous results for macaques (Macaca spp.). Replications with chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)initially failed to bring resolution, leading to claims that our close relatives must be indifferent to each other̢۪s welfare. This negative outcome was puzzling, however, given the high rates of altruistic behavior and cooperation in the chimpanzee̢۪s natural social life."
So these experiments are looking to objectively document altruism. They did it in chimps and didn't find any sign of it. BUT we already know they are altruistic (through observation). So what's up? Is the experiment poorly designed or is the apparent altruism really an illusion? If we had a priori decided chimps were altruistic, then why do the experiment? And if the experiment is valid, why brush off the findings when they are negative? |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 04:14:21 AM · #3571 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
With humanity.
|
So the concept of human decency originated with humanity... So if I put a baby in solitary confinement without any human interaction and didn't let the person out until he/she was 20 years old, that person would have a concept of human decency? |
Would that 20 year old have a concept of a God without having been taught religion? |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 05:23:22 AM · #3572 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
During the Inquisition people were violently killed in the name of Christianity. However, the motives behind the Inquisition were not Christian motives, but ones of political power and personal greed. The Inquisition was horrendous, and it's unfortunate that it was conducted in the name of Christianity, but the true ulterior motive was political, not religious. |
I would wager that this could be said of every inquisition/war/attack etc regardless of which god or gods it was in the name of. |
|
|
|
01/01/2010 06:07:55 AM · #3573 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I should just let DrAchoo do all the talking for me :) |
Well, at least that way we'd know where you're coming from instead of you spouting things from publications.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If human decency is what you say it is Jeb, then what if one person's idea of being good and thoughtful is lighting your house on fire to keep you warm during the winter? Is that "decent" and okay with you because the guy was being thoughtful for the sake of being thoughtful? |
You can come up with any outrageous thing you want any time someone hits you with an unanswerable question, but that doesn't make it true.
You know perfectly well this is a ridiculous hypthesis.......nobody's going to think that destroying your home by fire is the decent thing to do.
Explain to me how the cognizant, willful destruction is thoughtful?
You can't, because it's not.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You still think you have the right to tell someone how to be, we don't. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So if nobody has the right to tell us how to be, then how can we possibly know the difference between right and wrong? |
Again, if you want to get ridiculous, give an example out of context.
You know perfectly well that the statement was referrinmg to the case where you as an adult, theoretically with some semblance of human decency, have no right to impose your beliefs onto someone else........a concept that is, obviously, completely alien to those of you who see yourselves as the messengers of "The Word".
|
|
|
|
01/01/2010 06:13:06 AM · #3574 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In other words, humanity cannot determine what is unjust unless God tells it what is just. |
Another stellar example of how you know nothing about people.
So, are you claiming that with the exception of you good Christians, the rest of the world is basically anarchy and mayhem? That humans are willfully bent on destruction through their own selfish, hedonistic, gratification?
|
|
|
|
01/01/2010 06:19:01 AM · #3575 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If belief in God isn't required in order to do something decent to your fellow man, then what is required? |
Some of us simply understand that being, and doing good, is its own reward.
It's sad that concept is incomprehensible to you.
|
|
