|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 243 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A critique of moral relativism | |||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4752 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
Sorry i was not clear .. i ment the actual content of the code .. not the just basis on what those rule are arrived from ..
PaulK's post 177 does give a excellent basis .. but i was talking about the path to the rules dreived from that basis ... particualy in the case of relative morality ... what is considered to be a valid to make a relative choice from ..
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
quote: A very important point. I have to agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3856 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Here is the statement by PaulK:
quote: You respond (ikabod):
PaulK's post 177 does give a excellent basis .. but i was talking about the path to the rules dreived from that basis ... particualy in the case of relative morality ... what is considered to be a valid to make a relative choice from ..
Wouldn't the path consist of asking what actions and restraints (1) positively contribute to working together as a society and (2) balance personal interest with the interests of others? Then making prescriptions and proscriptions accordingly? ___ Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4752 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
Wouldn't the path consist of asking what actions and restraints (1) positively contribute to working together as a society and (2) balance personal interest with the interests of others? Then making prescriptions and proscriptions accordingly? it would BUT we have human beings involded and i belive most are not that logical and resonable when they come to a moral code ... which is why i was asking to see some versions that people follow ... unreasoned personal "tastes" play a major part .. also the power of the skilled few to set agendas and manipulate the majorities thoughts into the fews vision.....and the influance of history .. all bias the code away from your statement ... which is what i felt might be exposed by looking at example of actual moral codes .... look at how and why the codes reach the view they do ......
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3856 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
ikabod: unreasoned personal "tastes" play a major part .. also the power of the skilled few to set agendas and manipulate the majorities thoughts into the fews vision.....and the influance of history .. all bias the code away from your statement ... I don't see how. Someone--even if that person is a member of 'the skilled few' who 'manipulate the thoughts' of the majority--asks:
And makes prescriptions and proscriptions accordingly. Do those 'prescriptions and proscriptions' sometimes outlast their usefulness in history? Sure. All the time. Then the questions are asked anew--by the 'skilled few' or others, as need be--and the process continues. ___ Edited by Archer Opterix, : added detail. Edited by Archer Opterix, : html. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4752 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
what actions and restraints (1) positively contribute to working together as a society and (2) balance personal interest with the interests of others? arh but the "skilled few" are also subject to unreasoned personal tastes , and often those skilled few wish to promote their own agenda , they are still only human beings .. your method becomes... what actions and restraints (1) positively contribute to working together as a society ***** that works the way i think it should ****and (2) balance personal interest with the interests of others*****as long as im getting what i want first, and those others dont included ...say the uneducated , the landless , women , ethnic minorities , those living south of the river , who dont worship my gods etc etc ? the masses are steered by the "skilled few" ...just look at democrecy , morality is built the same way . . . . it SHOULD be the way you say but , us humans are not that good at such things , i mean to the list i gave i should have added inaction one of our greatest crimes .... should we not all as individuals work out from first principles our own moral code ? ? to make sure its correct ... instead we pick up whats laying around as we grow up ....its only debates like this that challenge us to question those moral values ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ikabod responds to me:
quote: And why is that problematic? That's my very point: There are no absolutists in reality. Oh, they may claim to be so, but since we can tell by their behaviour that they actually think that ciricumstances will alter the opinion of whether or not an act is good or bad, then we can know that they aren't. If you can't follow your own code, then you don't believe in it. The part you're seemingly forgetting is that there is no sense of remorse on the part of the person breaking their own code. If you think that killing is wrong and you kill someone, the question of whether or not you are following your own code comes in what happens afterward: Do you feel guilty about it or do you think you were justified? If you think you were justified, then you clearly don't believe in the absolute of "killing is wrong" since there is clearly at least one case where you think it is not wrong. Oh, you might think it sad that it had to come to that, but that is not the same as thinking it is wrong. And if we examine people, we find that they do this regarding their own "absolute" code all the time. They break it and they don't feel bad about having broken their own code. Why? Because they don't really believe what they say they do. They aren't absolutists. They are relativists.
quote: That doesn't answer the question. It was very simple and direct: When you say, "theory," do you mean, "educated guess"? If so, that isn't what science means when it says, "theory." And thus, we have the same problem with regard to the word "religion": You're equivocating the word so that anything and everything is a "religion" and thus the term loses all usefulness.
quote: But morality and atheism aren't religions. The former does not require the concept of supranormal activity and the latter can't even relate to the concept of such a thing. And thus, you are defining the term "religion" so broadly that it is worthless. Since everything is a "religion" by your definition, then there is no point in even using the term since it doesn't actually describe anything.
quote: Ahem. One of the defining characteristics of atheism is the lack of belief. That's the entire point. Ergo, atheism cannot be a "religion" by your definition. And since atheists have morality, then it must necessarily also be the case that morality is not necessarily bound to belief and, ergo, is not a "religion," by your definition. Congratulations. You just showed yourself to be wrong.
quote: Incorrect. If there were no theists, do you think anybody would go around declaiming, "I don't believe in god"? With no concept of "god" to react to, why would anybody waste any thoughts upon pointing out they did not react to something that nobody even considers? Atheism is not the zero of the scale. It is the absence of the scale. You are once again shifting the burden of proof.
quote: Something else, obviously. That's the point: You can't make any solid decisions without knowing the scenario in which the decision is to be made.
quote: Non sequitur. Please rephrase. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3856 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
I understand what you say about the advisability of taking personal responsibility over accepting hand-me-down answers. And I agree that it's the best way to go.
But that's neither here nor there as far as what I was talking about. I was talking about what a system of morals is called upon to do, no matter who designs it. I liked Straggler's formulation: what actions and restraints (1) positively contribute to working together as a society and (2) balance personal interest with the interests of others? In your eagerness to manifest your cynicism, you inserted a couple of bits:
(1) positively contribute to working together as a society (that works the way i think it should) (2) balance personal interest with the interests of others (as long as im getting what i want first, and those others [aren't] included
But you haven't really added anything. Any moral construct works the way the constructor 'thinks it should.' There is nothing insidious about this; it's just true by definition. If you don't think a belief works, you don't believe in it. A system of morals will be the product of what someone 'thinks' regardless of whether the thinking is done by many people, a few people, or one person. As for you getting what you want and others getting what they want, the question of how to balance the needs of the individual and the needs of the group is already in the picture. You tell us you don't like how some systems draw that picture. But the fact that they draw it is the point. That's the question moral systems address. Solutions differ. ____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev. Edited by Archer Opterix, : html. Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4752 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
If you can't follow your own code, then you don't believe in it.
.. then no one really belives in morality , or truth , or freedom , or justice , or human rights , or good , or bad .. as none of us are 100% followers of any of those things , we are all failures ,because we are only human .. we set up absolutes we can never hope to reach .. BUT those absolutes are our ideal , our goal , the thing we strive to be , they are the standards by which we measure ourself to see how far we have successed or failed .... we belive in such absolute because to not to is to give up trying ... what is the point of a moral code that does not expect 100% adherance ...you do not set up a set of laws and then say well btw we expect you to break about 3 a week ... you set up absolutes and try your hardest to make the grade ... BTW what is this power you have to read people deep inner feelings ?? that you can say no one feel guilt ?? that you can see the lack of remorse ? ? ... if you really have this power you could rule the world ....or do you demand a mass of wailing and weeks of acts of contrition when some one fails to meet their own standards of conduct ...may be shame make them hide their feelings , maybe its very personal and not for public dispaly ??? when i use the word theory in conection to evolution i use the word theory in the scientific sense .. why is that so hard to see .. what is wrong with saying evoultion is just a theory .. what else is it in scientific terms .. it is a theory its not a absolute.. as i stated ages ago i agree its the best theory we have and yes i would put money on it ..but it is just a theory .... to do presume to give the ToE some "sacred" status ....the first 100 rules of science are question , question and question again and even then be ready to test it again ....
One of the defining characteristics of atheism is the lack of belief. That's the entire point. Ergo, atheism cannot be a "religion" by your definition. no atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god ....how do you know there is not a god ??? ...if there is a god then atheist belive in something untrue .. they hold to a false belief ... and all the non atheist belive in something real ... they hold to a true belief..and before you come in with your burden of proof retort ...find me one atheist that can prove they are correct .....or one non atheist who can prove they are correct ....ill take either , but at this stage both view are a belief in how reality is .. without proof .. now as to morality i refer you to your own wordsa quoted at the start of this post ... to paraphrase , if i may , ..... if you follow you moral code , then you belive in it ..... why would you follow any moral code you did not belive to be of value ??? ok cos you a weak social conformatist .. no ...why follow the code .. cos you have a belief its the right thing to do ...you give it a value by you belief in it for its own sake ....it is your own personal religion .. your belief in it shapes and determine you path through life .... But morality and atheism aren't religions. The former does not require the concept of supranormal activity and the latter can't even relate to the concept of such a thing. suparnormal activity .. what like good , justice ,fairness , equality , freedom show me these in the natural world , find me a fish that is just , a rock that knows good from bad , a ray of light that shine for freedom ... all the concepts of morality are suparnormal they go beyond harsh reality ... and i think all atheist can relate to a concept of a god i mean just look at these forums and you will find a few concepts .. they just dont belive it to be true , they are not in a stae of ignorance ..many rock hard atheist spend lots of there time looking at the concepts of god/gods better to show the foly of belief in them .... you say If there were no theists, do you think anybody would go around declaiming, "I don't believe in god"? With no concept of "god" to react to, why would anybody waste any thoughts upon pointing out they did not react to something that nobody even considers? correct you make my point ...there are theist hence atheists , they are part of the same whole , they are oppersite side of the same coin ...you cant have atheist unless you have theists ... the question of god is central to define what each is ... my question to you was ....if all morality is relative what was the first moral choice made relative to?
Something else, obviously. That's the point: You can't make any solid decisions without knowing the scenario in which the decision is to be made. what something else? ..if you have no moral stance to compare to you are going to compare like with unlike ..you have no measure to judge the value of any fact ... for example Man A tell a untruth to Man B , and causes Man B to miss his chance to get to the apple tree which there are apples on it .... now there is a mass of other facts in this scenario .. but how do you tell which ones are relevent to the moral question ?? if this is the first case ...you have no reference points... which of these facts effect the question ? Man A is from your tribethe apple where nearer to man B home Man A likes dogs Man B like cats Man B and his family is straving Man A trades apples for eggs with Man C Man E,F,G,H,T, all got apples but only man H does not know Man A how many facts do you need to make your moral judgement ???do you assume life comeswith all the facts .?? As perr your request rephrasing the newborn question a baby is born .. does it have a inbuilt moral code ...or does it neeed to be taught a moral code ... in which case .. before they are taught a code are they making moral , immoral or amoral choices.... and IF as you demand, all morality is relative , if the baby was taught a moral code , how do you teach it with out examples , which are absolutes by their nature ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4752 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
sorry i seemed to rush to cynicism , but i was merely rushing to reality , we are all very bad at agreeing what society is and what it should be , way before we get to objectivly considering how to "positively contribute to working together as a society" and how to "balance personal interest with the interests of others?".
in most cases we need along run up to remeber that others have intrests . most peoples moral system is a short cut , a way to avoid having to think about the question , and having to use Straggler's formula , they want a list of responces so society see them as moral . When pushed to say why they answer a question is that they do , most act as if there are moral absolutes ..which need no explaining ... "murder is wrong cos well is murder, everyone knows its wrong " this is why i wanted someone to put up the contents of a moral code .. so we can examine it to see how and why it produces the answers it does .. to see is there a comman tread and where does that come from and go to .. . . while Stragglers formula ( gosh fame for Straggler i hope hes reading this )is excellent and is what we SHOULD be doing for each and evey qusetion as they arise .. its not what is done , ... i know cos im as guilty as everyone else ..... i would be so happy for you to show how wrong i am about people , but i think you will struggle to find a significant % that are as good as we both agree we should idealy be ..more power to Straggler's formula is what we need .... Is there a forum for posting such ideas a Straggler's formula , as a reference list of good ideas ??
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ikabod responds to me:
quote:quote: Huh? How does that follow. Just because morality and truth and freedom and justice and human rights and good and bad are relative doesn't mean they don't exist. To bring up my Monopoly example again: The rules of Monopoly are completely arbitrary and relative. There is a common house rule that any money collected from Chance and Community Chest cards is placed on Free Parking. If you land on that square, you get any money that is there. This rule has become so popular that it is now included as an official variant. But just because that rule is relative to the game in which your playing doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist.
quote: Then there are no absolutists. All are relativists. Thank you for finally stating something directly.
quote: Simple observation. Do they say one thing and then do another while declaiming that they have no remorse? I don't have to read their minds or do anything more than simply watch and observe. Someone who says one thing, does another, and does not have remorse does not actually believe what he says. Or do we now need to add "believe" to your list of words that are meaningless?
quote: Because when I asked you in a simple, straightforward manner, you responded with obfuscation.
quote: Because we are not naive and understand the phrasings of English as spoken by native speakers. Yes, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. That is why we call it the theory OF evolution. The theory OF evolution seeks to explain the FACT of evolution. We know that evolution happened. The only question is the precise method by which it did.
quote: Incorrect. The definition of atheism is the lack of belief. Or are you saying there are no atheists? There's an old joke: What's the difference between a theist and an atheist? A theist claims that of the 1000 different gods and religions out there, 999 of them are wrong. An atheist doesn't make an exception for that last one. You're about to add "belief" to your list of words that are meaningless, aren't you?
quote: Ask an atheist. By the way...please define "god." After all, the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. It is theists who are claiming the existence of god, so it is not the responsibility of atheists to define it or prove it.
quote: Nice try. That's my argument to you. If you don't follow it, then you don't believe it. Since simple observation shows us that those who claim to be absolutist don't actually follow their own code, then we necessarily conclude that they don't believe it.
quote: Huh? None of those things are "supranormal." Are we about to add yet another entry to your list of words that are meaningless?
quote: Huh? You didn't read my post at all, did you. Let's try it again: Suppose there were no theists. Do you think there would be anybody delciaming, "I don't believe in god"? If there can be atheists in the absence of theists, then your statement is trivially proven false. Or are you saying there are no atheists? There is no point in continuing if you are.
quote: And I answered it: Something else. That's the entire point behind relativism: Good and bad cannot be absolutely determined but can only be judged based upon the context in which any particular action happens. You relate it to something else.
quote: Why does it matter? All relativistic decisions are made in the manner of comparing things to other things. There is no absolute other.
quote: Lots of ways. Experience and logic, for example.
quote: Taught, of course. The fact that there are different codes of morality (even relative ones) shows that it is not inborn.
quote: Ahem...what makes you think you can't teach yourself? Hint: What is required in order for "morality" to exist in the first place? A branch falls from a tree. Was that action "moral"? We're not talking about the means by which the ability to make moral decisions comes from. We are assuming that such an ability already exists.
quote: You're now equivocating "absolute" to mean "generalized." I guess we've got yet another word to add to your list of words that are meaningless. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4752 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
ok so i guess i understand your metohd of debate now ...
first you claim the person is not being clear .... then you claim they are not using words in the way YOU demand they are used .. this confusing any hope of discussion ... you always demand the burden of proof lie on the opersite side to any stance you take .... lets try once more ....
[qs]
you said If you can't follow your own code, then you don't believe in it. i said .. then no one really belives in morality , or truth , or freedom , or justice , or human rights , or good , or bad . . you reply Huh? How does that follow. Just because morality and truth and freedom and justice and human rights and good and bad are relative doesn't mean they don't exist. so what is not clear , you set a rule ....dont follow = dont belive ,people are not always truthfull therefore they dont belive in a code of truth , insert fredom , justice , good , bad , morality for truth .. and it semm clear from your rule ....... for a moral code to be belived in people cant break ANY of its rules .. why did you introduce the term relative...?? the code is the code , absolute or relative .... a realtive code is just as breakable .. unless you are now talking about a "moral excuess code" which really consists of "why this does not applly to me" statements ?? ok your monoploy ...NO the rules are absolute with in the realm of monopoly , you dont use the rules for bingo to play monpoly , just as when your being moral you dont use the rules for being a US Marine .. the monpoly rules are specfic to the prupose they were drawn up for .... they are printed on paper and are fixed unchanging ... if you chosse to break , modifie or plain ignore those rules , the printing on the paper remains the same ... and for those who do follow the paper rule there is no change.What you do does not effect the printed rules . They are no more arbitrary that any human constructed set of rules , like freedom , human rights , and morality ..(****) Change does occur over time ..but the new variant becomes as absolute as the old one , players cant play the game each using a different variant ,they split in to 2 camps the traditionalist.. and the New rulists ... in human society this would lead to a split into two or more societies , as history shows.. the traditionalist still follow the original set of absolutes ....the New rulist follow the new set of absolutes .... ( ****) ... i will remind you i said there are people who belive in a absolute set of moral rule .. i never said i was or was not one of them ..
Yes, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. That is why we call it the theory OF evolution. The theory OF evolution seeks to explain the FACT of evolution. We know that evolution happened. The only question is the precise method by which it did. no evolution is not a fact .. becasue not all of this details are know or proven .. thus it cant be defined, scientifical , to that degree to make it a fact .. evolution is the best working theory based on what facts we currently have .. parts are constantly being updated as new data becomes avaiable .. you seem to demand the ToE to be treated as a "holy of holies" its not is a working theoryand btw this line ."the theory OF evolution seeks to explain the FACT of evolution.." how unscientific can you get would you allow this .. in science the theory of creation seeks to explain the FACT of creation ??? science does not presume there are "facts of evolution" .. just facts .. which may show the predictions of the theory are correct .
Incorrect. The definition of atheism is the lack of belief. gosh atheist are unable to belive .. what even in santa , or the tooth fairy .. or freedom , or justice ..they belive in the non- exsistance of a god/gods , if they had proof they could make a fortune on TV chat shows , writing books etc .NO they belive that their view that there are no god/gods is the way the world really is .
i asked how do you know there is not a god ??? you said
Ask an atheist. By the way...please define "god." After all, the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. It is theists who are claiming the existence of god, so it is not the responsibility of atheists to define it or prove it. why are you giving the words of a atheist more value that the theist .. or are you just demanding your view is the correct one .. to answer such a major question as is there a god , you would simple ask some jo public who has alrady stated his view ... so do you ask bugerking who makes the best fast food , do you ask ford ,who make the best family car .. do you ask george bush was the USA right to go into iraq.. do you ask a nazis if israel has a right to exsist ... as to burden of proof i made the point before neither side can PROVE the question of the exsistance of god ... so to be scientific about it , the question being does god exsist.. the burden is equal ..unless YOU wish to show favour to one side ...science takes the neutal point add looks for facts , the see which view is supported or not.OR do you wish a non scentific proof ?? now you want a me to define god ..??/why dont you have a working idea .. or have you only spoken to a atheist .. did they not tell you what they dont belive in ?
We're not talking about the means by which the ability to make moral decisions comes from. We are assuming that such an ability already exists. are , oh , so you belive humans have a inbuilt ability to to make moral decisions ..?? what is this ability based upon .. inherantly knowing a moral question when it arises ? does it flash red so to speak ....do we each have a filter that shunts moral questions to the morality lobe of the brain ...? please explain what you mean here the reason some people belive in moral absolutes is this gives them the ability to make moral choices.. with out absolutes they are adrift is a sea of uncertaincy and they cannot function that way , and if they break that code they still go back to the absolute because that have to , they need the absolutes .Not all people are like this some have enough certainty about the value of their own views that the can make up a personal moral code , the feel safe and confident in making personal choices , their selfvalue allow them to place their veiw above the view of others . i said how do you teach it with out examples , which are absolutes by their nature ...
you said
You're now equivocating "absolute" to mean "generalized." Here i must say sorry i was not clear .. how do you teach it with out examples , when the examples you use are not absolutes ...in that the example you use to teach a moral point only has one moral answer. if as you pointed to using "generalized" example these by their nature can lead to different possible moral answers .... how do you answer the question "which is the right answer" ..and if you say none or all .. are you not saying morality is a matter of persoanl taste ...regulated by social peer pressure ... like say fasion , music , painting ?? Edited by ikabod, : quotes boxes
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ikabod responds to me:
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost much and you can get the materials from any reputable biological supply house. Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage. What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too. But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage. How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it. But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died. Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage. But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage. What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form. But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on. Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear. So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity. There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again. You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation. Are you claiming that these things don't exist? That the very thing that happened right before your eyes didn't actually happen? That it is something other than evolution? And don't play dumb and claim, "Oh, but that's microevolution...I'm talking about macroevolution," as if those two things were somehow different. I can show you the data where we have seen speciation happen right in front of our eyes. Evolution is a fact just as much as gravity is. In fact, evolution is even more well-founded than gravity because we actually have a mechanism for evolution and can directly manipulate it. We still have no idea what gravity is. Anybody who thinks that there is some doubt as to whether or not evolution actually happened simply hasn't bothered to do any study in the subject at all.
quote: If there were an established incident of creation, yes. Unfortunately, we have never actually seen creation happen. We have yet to conduct any experiment that verified the act of creation. So you tell me: Given that we can make evolution happen right in front of our eyes on a high school budget and given that we have never, ever seen an act of creation, which one would you say is the fact and which one is the fiction?
quote: Huh? How did we get from Santa and the Tooth Fairy to "freedom" and "justice"? I see that you have turned "belief" into a meaningless word.
quote: Logical error: Shifting the burden of proof. It is not up to atheists to prove the non-existence of god. Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. Those that claim there is a god are the ones who need to show that god exists. I don't have to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to show that 2 + 2 <> 5. Oh, it would be nice if I did, but it isn't my responsibility to declaim it. It is for those who insist that there is a sum to 2 + 2 to do the work of proving it.
quote: But your point is invalid as it rests upon the logical error of a false equivalency and shifting of the burden of proof. It is not the responsibility of those without god to show that there is no god. And because of that, whether or not they haven't cannot be held against them. The sole burden of proof is upon those who claim there is a god. Once that has been made, those who think they have made an error can go through and point out the holes in the argument, but that's all they need to do. I don't have to show 2 + 2 = 4 in order to prove that 2 + 2 <> 5.
quote: But that's just it: When push comes to shove, they abandon those absolutes for relativism.
quote: Who said anything about not using examples? Of course you use examples. But you realize that the examples are not absolute. After all, that's the entire point behind the various moral games like "Lifeboat."
quote: Depends. What are the circumstances? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4752 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
OK clearing up a few points the BACK to the OP
thank you for a perfect example of you debating style .. you avoid all the questions ,you are clearly NOT stuipd, and yet you fail to read what is writen and put your own spin on it , you claim sole usage of the english language , and thus divertaway from the debate bt trashing whta is written . you demand that you set all agenda and your stand point is the only one . this is not meaniong fully , it is clear you have fixed view of reality and refuse to be drawn into any discussion that challenge those view clearly to you evolution is the sacred cow .. no one mustr defame its glory or most holy words the mere surgestion of a god/gods ,even as adebating point , sends you running to the hills of "na na fingers in my ears , i cant hear you " Why are you so defensive , did a theist once bite you ?? Right lets get this clear ..... you E.Coli experioments is genetics in action , it shows change with in the gene pool , it shows selection by imunity , it show many things , BUT that is not the ToE , the ToE is much more .. the ToE does not , yet , have access to all the data , from a wide range of sciences to make it a fact ... on a very simple level , just cos E.Coli can mutant to do some thing does not mean it did , you have shown a possible means for evolution to take place . As i have said ToE works for me to , BUT i take the scientifc stance that there is still alot more to be learned and we do not have all the FACTS need to say that the ToE is complete , its still a woke in progress . Now im sorry you will have to live with that as a FACT .. end of ToE debate .. its off topic ..... ......................................................................ok sorry for long qoute but nice example ..... quote:
gosh atheist are unable to belive .. what even in santa , or the tooth fairy .. or freedom , or justice ..they belive in the non- exsistance of a god/gods Huh? How did we get from Santa and the Tooth Fairy to "freedom" and "justice"? I see that you have turned "belief" into a meaningless word.
quote: if they had proof they could make a fortune on TV chat shows , writing books etc . Logical error: Shifting the burden of proof. It is not up to atheists to prove the non-existence of god. Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. Those that claim there is a god are the ones who need to show that god exists. ok ill use little words ..Santa ,the Tooth Fairy , freedom ,justice are not real , they are things we make up , they only have a "reality" if we belive in them , if as you keep saying atheist do not belive in things then they dont belive in Santa ,the Tooth Fairy , freedom ,justice .However if they do belive in Santa ,the Tooth Fairy , freedom ,justice .. they COULD belive in god/gods BUT they make a choice NOT to ....thus the amount of belief they direct to god /gods is ZERO , BUT there is still potential belief , even atheist can change their mind ... now as to you fav phrase ...Burden of proof ... you assume the ground state of reality is atheist , why ?? is this personal , or do you have access to some hidden knowleged ?? we live in a reality where some belive in god/gods and some dont , anyone growing up is exposed to both views , they have to pick a view , just as they have to pick a stance on freedom , justice , human rights , equality ... while doing this they are faced with imput from many biased propogandists .. they have to sift the facts .... these poeple belive in god/gods .. these dont belive in god/gods...... which is correct .. ie equal burden of proof ..... if you had never been exposed to the concept of god/gods you wouldd not be a atheist , you would have no stance . if you had been raised in a world where every one else belived in a god /gods ..you would have to prove to you self god did not exsist to become a atheist ... ...................................................................... ok no more on any of that ...let focus on the OP ..... moral relativism ...we got to .. quote:
how do you answer the question "which is the right answer"
Depends. What are the circumstances? ok it turn it around .. with out absolutes .. what is the right question ?... if every thing is dependant on the circumumstances , how do you know when to ask the question .. "is this moral?"and to which parts of the event do you aim the question at.. the act , the motive , the out come , the value , the limits .
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 266 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
idabod responds to me:
quote: Nice try, but that's my complaint to you.
quote: Incorrect. Instead, I refuse to allow equivocation as that is a logical error.
quote: Incorrect. I could abandon evolution right now if you could show the evidence against it. Show me a fossilized rabbit from Pre-Cambrian strata. Show me an ostrich hatching from an alligator's egg. Show me that all species are genetically equidistant from each other. I can give you at least half a dozen pieces of evidence that would make me drop evolution like a hot potato. The reason I advocate for evolution isn't that it's a "sacred cow" but that every single piece of evidence we have points to it. As Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." So have at it. Where is the brighter light?
quote: Last refuge of those who have no argument: "Why are you so defensive?" as if I had any emotional attachment to this discussion. By personalizing, by trying to make me out to be some sort of hysterical lunatic, you get to maintain your own personal world. No, you didn't make a mistake...I must be crazy. Can you try arguing without the ad hominem?
quote: (*blink*) You did not just say that, did you? I show you evolution right in front of your eyes and you claim that it isn't sufficient? You did exactly what I predicted you would: "Oh, that's only microevolution. I meant macroevolution," as if there were any difference between evolutionary changes below the species level and evolutionary changes above the species level. And notice, you've engaged in yet another logical error: Moving the goalposts. All you said was that evolution was not a fact. I provide you with evolution happening right in front of your eyes, and somehow that isn't good enough. Unprepared to deal with something that you expected couldn't be shown, you move the goalposts to something else that you didn't ask for in the first place and then hope to high heaven that nobody notices. Nice try.
quote: Of course. Just because we have established the objective fact of evolution doesn't mean we know absolutely everything about it. If we did, it would be a dead field and nobody would study it since there would be nothing to learn. But, you're engaging in yet another logical fallacy: Because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything. Again, back to gravity. We know quite a bit about it. We can measure it, predict it, model it, use it to our advantage, etc. But we still have absolutely no idea what it is, how to manipulate it, where it comes from, or why it even exists. All of those things we do know for evolution. Not everything, no, but we do know a fair amount. And yet, nobody seems to think that gravity is some sort of nebulous concept that still needs further justification. If I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. Since we haven't managed to perfect that telepathy thing just yet, we use language to describe what just happened and the word we have chosen to represent the force that pulled the ball down is "gravity." There is no question that gravity is a fact since we just showed it to exist, right in front of our very eyes. So why does evolution get the short shrift? If we observe populations over time, their genetic frequencies change. Since we haven't managed to perfect that telepathy thing just yet, we use language to describe what just happened and the word we have chose to represent the shift of genetic frequencies is "evolution." There is no question that evolution is a fact since we just showed it to exist, right in front of our very eyes. But somehow, that doesn't seem to be good enough.
quote: Do you truly not see the difference between things like "Santa" and the "Tooth Fairy" and things like "freedom" and "justice"? Here's a hint: Why do we capitalize "Santa" but not "freedom"?
quote: Incorrect. Do you believe in Santa? Why not? If you ask the average person why not, they'll give a whole host of reasons, based upon evidence such as the fact that we've been to the North Pole: There's no workshop there. And even more damning, your parents admit that it was them. And once again, you have conflated things like "Santa" and the "Tooth Fairy" with things like "freedom" and "justice." And once again, you have equivocated "belief" to be a meaningless word. That atheists acknowledge concepts like "freedom" and "justice," doesn't mean they "believe" in them the way theists "believe" in god.
quote: Incorrect. False equivalency, shifting of burden of proof. Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. Those who believe in god are burdened with providing proof of god's existence. Those without belief have no such burden for they are the default position. Once again, a direct question which you have yet to answer: If there were no theists, would there be anybody who actively said, "I don't believe in god"? There are an infinite numbers of things you don't believe in, many due to the fact that you simply haven't heard of the thing you don't believe. For example, what about the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed Be Her Horn)? Do you have an opinion about that? Does the fact that you've now heard of the IPU (BBHN) mean you've suddenly acquired yet another religion? See, this is why your definitions of "religion" and "belief" are worthless. Everything becomes a "belief," everything is a "religion." And since it applies to everything, it actually describes nothing.
quote: How is that any different from current atheists? They don't go around declaring their atheism in some sort of attempt to reinforce their beliefs. They only time it even comes to mind is because somebody else has brought it up. So if there were nobody to bring it up, how on earth could you tell?
quote: Incorrect. You simply do what an amazing number of atheists do: Simply realize that those who claim that god exists haven't met their burden of proof: Go to the North Pole and see there's no workshop there. I don't have to prove 2 + 2 = 4 to show that 2 + 2 <> 5.
quote: Non sequitur. Please rephrase.
quote: Because morality is a construct of social interaction. If the action is not a social one, what on earth is the point in asking if it is "moral"?
quote: Why limit it? Surely you've heard the concepts of "short term" and "long term," yes? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024