Real World Philospohy

[Fyron]

No I'm not. I am dismissing the topic as pointless to discuss further at this juncture. You wanted moral systems that did not rely on "feels-good" assumptions, and I delivered. Do with them what you will.

[Phoenix-D]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No I'm not. I am dismissing the topic as pointless to discuss further at this juncture. You wanted moral systems that did not rely on "feels-good" assumptions, and I delivered. Do with them what you will.

You -said- you delivered, he's taking issue with that. Fyron, you haven't proved a thing..

[Fyron]

Of course I didn't "prove" anything. Neither did Jack. He just asserted a bunch of things and expects everyone to take his statements on authority. I did not set out to prove anything here because this topic is not worth the time to discuss it at this juncture. Enough said.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by spoon:
Your example is the equivalent of debunking God by saying, The Son of Sam heard the Voice of God, so therefore God is bad. It was an isolated and extreme example, and not reflective of the current state of affairs.

...

By politics here, I assume you mean the politics of the scientists, and not, say, world politics.

The two are intermingled; again, my specific example from earlier was just one where it was clearly laid out in documentation of the day - but there are other historical paralells; once racism ceased to be publicly acceptable, evolution cut down on its racist aspects; but at the same time, what was considered immoral before became more acceptable. Most non-evolution froms of origins beliefs also carry ethical content with them that stated much of the behavior that was becoming more commonly accepted was bad; evolution/big bang origins theory does not require any particular code of conduct, and got carried along.

Originally posted by spoon:
If this is the case, the reason it is difficult to get "revolutionary" ideas accepted is because they have a lot to overcome. It is not a conspiracy to keep, for example, Young Earth theories down. The reason Young Earth theories aren't accepted is because they are bogus. The arguments I've read about have all been addressed and discredited.

Well, I don't really expect to change anyone's mind on anything; I'm not really sure why I'm continuing the discussion, really.

Originally posted by spoon:
You got your causality backwards, then. Racsim didn't beget evolution. Evolution did beget, however, the mostly innaccurate idea of Social Darwinism. Or are you saying that it's racism that keeps evolution in favor these days?

I've not actually said that one causes the other, although I can see how a person could readily read me that way; evolutionary theory is actually very, very old; it's specific standing in the scientific community corresponds with non-scientific social winds.

Originally posted by spoon:

As far as the scientists using human as "specimens", I'm not sure, then, what "politcal wind" you draw from there. Please elaborate. Not on the details, but rather how it applies to the discussion at hand.

When racisim was politiacally (perhaps socially is a better fit) acceptable, evolutionary theory lent itself to supporting racisim; when racism became politically unacceptable, evolutionary theory lent itself to deny racism; something bendable in either direction on an issue of such high ethical charge deserves an amount of skepticism.

True, one could also apply this to the Bible...

Originally posted by spoon:
How is being punished in the afterlife different from being punished in your regular life, other than degree?

You honestly believe Christian obidience to God's Law is fear based? I suppose it might be for some, but historically, anything primarily fear-based is not long-term stable; how long has Christianity been around now?

As to a more direct response to your question, accuracy, for one. With the onset of DNA analysis, a number of people were discovered to have been innocent of crimes they were convicted of - which also means that the person who actually did the crime got away with it. An all-knowing judge fixes that problem.

Originally posted by spoon:
Ah but that's the rub, how do we know which is the right interpretation?

[Bad accent]Ya's pay's yer money and ya's makes yer choice.[/Bad accent] You can't be objectively certain this side of doomsday, true - but that could be said about anything, really. You do your best to read it yourself and see which one is the best fit.

Originally posted by spoon:
Seems silly to base a moral guideline on something as ambiguous as, say, the bible. Too much room to wiggle around, if you will.

There is some interpertive wiggle room on some of the finer distinctions; but taking the Bible as Truth eliminates wiggle room on most of the top ethical questions. Also, it helps to have something that doesn't change (in theory, anyway).

Originally posted by spoon:
Not true. Details are debated and then compared to the model. Model adopts to the changes.

The model changes somewhat, but it's main theses (ancient universe, general trend towards improvement of life-forms, et cetera) don't.

Originally posted by spoon:
Other models are welcome, but few make the cut.

I've mentioned my take on the cutting process before; it's biased.

Originally posted by spoon:
Do you have a better model? Please tell!

Not fleshed out well enough to debate properly, anyway

Originally posted by spoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by spoon:
which seems like a valid thing to claim. Why is that a brush off?

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Now I'm slightly confused - above you claim it is as nearly proven as a theory can be, and here you claim it's valid to claim it is currently undergoing re-evaluation - at first glance, those seem slightly contradictory. Please elaborate.

You are aware of how science works, right? I mean, I feel like I'm holding your hand here, but Scientific Theory is never "proven" in the boolean since of the word. There is no such thing as Truth.
...

---

Oh, I am aware, and now after seeing your response to a request for elaboration, I can now tell you how it is a brush off: when I encountered it it was used as a means to avoid dealing with a discrepency between the theory and observations; in that context, it was a faith-statement, as the person saying it did not allow for the possibility of the theory being fundamentally flawed.

Originally posted by spoon:
Back to my foot, if one guy said it had five toes, and another guy said it only had four, it doesn't follow that I have no foot.

In the case of your foot, that's testable within quite reasonable parameters; and it doesn't follow that you don't have a foot. However, if the debate is on a foot that isn't around, while the four-toe advocate has reasoning indicating that the potential foot in question couldn't possibly have more than four toes, which the five-toe advocate can't refute, while the five-toe advocate has reasoning indicating that the potential foot in question couldn't possibly have less than five toes, which the four-toe advocate can't refute, while there is a document predating both which claims to have seen the alleged foot, who claims it was actually a hoof, then it is a pretty good idea to doubt the foot theory.

Originally posted by spoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Christianity is more divided than you seem to think, and many of them either don't consider it important or consider other things more worthwhile.

Well, if the details and mechanisims of Christianity actually supported the Theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them.

---

Since when has everyone been entierly rational? I missed that memo.

The Bible is Truth in its entierety (unproveable this side of Doomsday, true; a belief/assumption/whatever you want to call it), but it doesn't list the specific details everyone is looking for (that wasn't the specific purpose of the Bible) when developing models; as such, the models are all based on flawed humans filling in the gaps. Those gaps can have flaws, and many (many swayed by the evils in evolution) disagree that the Bible is fully Truth; this is where I suspect much of the disagreement you note comes from.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Also, it is completely possible to have a moral system not based on an arbitrary religion that does not rely on "feels-right" assumptions, and most atheists have such systems. Some do not, of course, but most still do.

Can you name such a system and give details on it?

---

Sure, it's called "DavidG's code of ethics" You want details on everything I think is right and wrong and why? Well maybe If I got a few weeks to spare.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

*a less-sick Narf charges back into the ring. and first, i'm going to pick on Fyron.*

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
here are the basics of an example: if it directly or indirectly harms another person other than yourself, it is immoral. If it doesn't, it is not immoral. Being "moral" does not specifcally matter, as most actions that are obviously not immoral are not necessarily morally good.

my own belief is that every action is either right or wrong; however, that's my assumption. you are assuming that something cannot harm someone without being wrong. what about surgury, which harms and may KILL the person surgury is being performed upon, but is nessasary, perhaps even for the continued survival of that person. you need some if modifier's.

ere is another one: if it infringes upon the freedoms (freedom to live, freedom to be happy, freedom to better him/herself, etc.) of another individual, it is immoral. If not, it is not immoral. Again, being "moral" is not a big concern, for the same reason as above.

so, then, a twenty-four hour lockdown to search for a murdurous person or people is immoral? i'm not saying it couldn't be argued, just wondering if you've thought of contingency's or principle's to cover them.

Neither of these rely on "feel-right" assumptions.

at the risk of being redundant, they do.

They can be arrived from from the fact that harming others tends to destablize society in general, so it is better to not harm others than to harm them. If society becomes destablized too much, you might end up getting killed. This is not an assumption, but an observation of human societies.

which could easily justify actions i would call wrong if they could be said to stabilize society.

Spoon
And it probably doesn't help matters that creationism is junk science without merit...

creationism is a semi-science, the only science that comes into play is the science that concludes that it might have happened. actual beleif in creationism generally comes from or with beleif in god. do you want to hear my arguement that dinosaur's where, in fact, our pre-mortal spirits figuring out what traites worked best for survival? (i wonder how many people can guess my religeon now...)

Spoon
This seems a better system than The Burning Bush Said So system. Especially when what exactly the Bush said is debatable and subject to interpretation.

so, if a burning bush that isn't consumed told you something that contradicted your own feeling's, would you completly ignore it? or would that depend on how deep your feelings on that matter where?

Jack
Mainstream media has the same basic bias, and a tendancy to edit in favor of the side they favor; you pretty much never see creation/evolution debates in the media because the creationists have been burned that way before, and either require that the debate be live or require a no-editing contract, neither of which the media is willing to grant.

the media is liberal.

With a source that all parties agree is correct that can be shown to speak on the issue, it is usually possible for one side to convice the other that their position is not correct.

interpretation of the bible. something like 2500 christian sects, i've heard.

that's page 1

[Will]

"See the cat? See the cradle?"