New film tackles evidence for evolution

[Jose Fly]

Do you think I would be charged with murder and convicted? Or do you think "God told me to do it, and God is not subject to any morality" would be a good defense?

 

[resurrected]

Do you think I would be charged with murder and convicted?

for hearing voices in your head?

no, probably not

 

[Lon]

That's presuming an awful lot about morality.

You are going to demonstrate in a second why it was true. Stripe was correct.

No one claims that.

Then you'd not be an atheist. ▲These▼ are exclusive.

How would you demonstrate that objective morality exists?

1) that we all know it is wrong to kill another human being and most of us never have (even if it was necessary - ie police, military).
Iow, we all have absolutes that we agree on and follow. These others are 'exceptions' to the rule. The rules stand and are not arbitrary.

2) that random chance and no purpose cannot produce these (film premise)

3) that you live with this dichotomy, but are just trying to shuck part of it, probably for convenience rather than the sake of what is actually true or not. Such is not living truthfully but vaguely and unpurposefully (purposeful obtusion to purpose to be lazy or excusing) and you yourself know it! That's why Romans says you and I have no excuse because the universe and morality scream of God's existence clearly.

 

[Lon]

Do you think I would be charged with murder and convicted? Or do you think "God told me to do it, and God is not subject to any morality" would be a good defense?

You'd still face social consequences. There are a few abortion-clinic bombers who go to jail. They believe they've saved many lives in taking a few. "Did God tell them to do it?" That is between them and God.
I nor you (especially "nor you" - not believing) could say otherwise.

 

[rexlunae]

▲These▼

Oh, that's adorable.

1) that we all know it is wrong to kill another human being and most of us never have (even if it was necessary - ie police, military).
Iow, we all have absolutes that we agree on and follow. These others are 'exceptions' to the rule. The rules stand and are not arbitrary.

2) that random chance and no purpose cannot produce these (film premise)

3) that you live with this dichotomy, but are just trying to shuck part of it, probably for convenience rather than the sake of what is actually true or not. Such is not living truthfully but vaguely and unpurposefully (purposeful obtusion to purpose to be lazy or excusing) and you yourself know it! That's why Romans says you and I have no excuse because the universe and morality scream of God's existence clearly.

Since I just finished explaining this to Stripe, I'd just ask you to go back to my most recent post in this thread and read my expanded explanation to him. Feel free to comment on that.

 

[Stripe]

My assertion is based on the definition of objective in comparison to what you are trying to pass off as objective.

There you go again. Pretending that I am asserting that morality is subjective when I assert that morality is necessarily objective is no argument.

What you need to do is show good reason why what I say cannot be true.

Meanwhile, you run ever farther from the challenge to evolution. If evolution is the only game in town, the existence of morality shows that it is unable to account for what we have. Thus, it fails.

 

[rexlunae]

There you go again. Pretending that I am asserting that morality is subjective when I assert that morality is necessarily objective is no argument.

What you need to do is show good reason why what I say cannot be true.

Meanwhile, you run ever farther from the challenge to evolution. If evolution is the only game in town, the existence of morality shows that it is unable to account for what we have. Thus, it fails.

Since you didn't even attempt to address the main point of my latest, including the potential roll of evolution in forming morality, I'm going to assume we're done.

 

[musterion]

Like I said, this thread is yet another opportunity for fundamentalist Christians to put their ridiculous beliefs on display. :chuckle:

Watch how you swing that bat, it swings both ways. You think we're the latest in a peculiar line of advanced ape that is ultimately derived, for absolutely no reason, from rock.

 

[Jose Fly]

for hearing voices in your head?

no, probably not

Ah, well at least we know what category you put "God told me to do it" in.

 

[Jose Fly]

You'd still face social consequences. There are a few abortion-clinic bombers who go to jail. They believe they've saved many lives in taking a few. "Did God tell them to do it?" That is between them and God.
I nor you (especially "nor you" - not believing) could say otherwise.

So why doesn't human society recognize the existence of objective morality that comes directly from this god?

 

[TracerBullet]

Spot on. :thumb:

If morality exists, it must have an objective standard.

why?

 

[Lon]

Oh, that's adorable.

Your own sentences? You are an enigma.

Since I just finished explaining this to Stripe, I'd just ask you to go back to my most recent post in this thread and read my expanded explanation to him. Feel free to comment on that.

Both he and AMR already did a more than adequate job of proving their points to you. Mine is but a summation of both of their good posts.

You are living in denial (perhaps with a bit of confused ignorance mixed in).

 

[Lon]

why?

Otherwise it isn't 'moral.' It would just be 'the way it is.' There is no value without absolutes.

 

[Lon]

So why doesn't human society recognize the existence of objective morality that comes directly from this god?

You do. I already told you almost all of us on the planet have an aversion to killing another human being, even police and military.

There are 'exceptions' and I already said that, but even they know it is against a moral absolute.

 

[Nihilo]

You didn't answer the question. Is genocide 100% immoral, no matter what?

Of course it is you meathead. :yawn:

 

[rexlunae]

You are living in denial (perhaps with a bit of confused ignorance mixed in).

Right. The denial is not coming from the people clinging to the notion that the Earth is 6-10 thousand years old and that morality is a disembodied specter.

 

[Stripe]

Since you didn't even attempt to address the main point of my latest, including the potential roll of evolution in forming morality, I'm going to assume we're done.

OK, bye. :wave2:

why?

Evolutionists hate reading. :chuckle:

 

[resurrected]

if stupidity exists, it must have an objective standard


and its name is traci

 

[Evoken]

Pigs producing pigs and rose bushes producing roses. :think:

And that is perfectly fine, since strictly speaking, under evolution a member of a particular species doesn’t suddenly “produces” a full blown member of another species. So we shouldn't expect to see that. Rather, every species produces after it’s own "kind" and it is the slow and gradual accumulation of small changes by virtue of descent with modification that eventually leads to speciation and the branching out of species.

With this in mind, the verses you listed need not bet at odds with evolution and could be understood in such a way that they are consistent with it.


Evo

 

[noguru]

And that is perfectly fine, since strictly speaking, under evolution a member of a particular species doesn’t suddenly “produces” a full blown member of another species. So we shouldn't expect to see that. Rather, every species produces after it’s own "kind" and it is the slow and gradual accumulation of small changes by virtue of descent with modification that eventually leads to speciation and the branching out of species.

With this in mind, the verses you listed need not bet at odds with evolution and could be understood in such a way that they are consistent with it.


Evo

Creationist seem to want others to be open minded about the possibility of the YEC model. Though they don't seem to want to consider the likelihood of what you posted.