Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - A ruling on Evolution vs. Creationism

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

A ruling on Evolution vs. Creationism
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Did the Judge make the right decision?

Yes, and it's about time. Can I get a hallelujah?

95%

[ 22 ]

No, he's going to burn in hell for all eternity.

[ 1 ]

Total Votes : 23

Author

Message

laogaiguk

Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea

Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:38 pm Post subject:

[quote="flakfizer"]

laogaiguk wrote:

Oh, you've done it now. I have 3 hours of nothing to do at my public school and I am going to let it rip. I have finished all work for next term, cleaned up and taken down all the Christmas stuff.

Not to mention you shot yourself in the foot. You are good cause someone told you to and if you don't you will be punished. I am good because I actually want to be good with no fear of retribution if I don't. I also do good above and beyond the need for my own survival, therefore overcoming obstacles to my 'goodness' that you religious folk don't have.

How did I shoot myself in the foot? By not claiming to be morally superior as you just did? By implying that people (myself included) tend to do what benefits themselves? You are claiming to be good in and of yourself? I would not say I am good because someone told me to be. I would say I try to do what is good though I, of myself, am not good.

you shot yourself in the foot by saying that non-religious folk will only do what is needed for survival. Now, if we can (and quite regularily do) overcome that and be good on top of that, then we are actually being better than religious folk who do it out of fear of punishment. OK?

Quote:

1. Are there even such things as right and wrong/good and bad?
Yes, bad causes damage or sadness to another someone's or something's life while good causes happiness or benefit in someone's or something's life

Where did you get such an idea? It isn't natural, and without God, nature is all we have.

Have you taken a look at nature? Dolphins actually save peoples lives by attacking sharks, doesn't help survival much, does it?

Quote:

2. If there are, how do we know which is which?
See #1
3. Even if we know which is which, why choose one over the other?
Because I like to see someone smile Smile

Good people create a good society in which everyone (even the bad people) can live more happily in. No good = chaos. We don't like chaotic societies, so we tend to be good.

If we tend to be good, why do these good societies of which you speak have systems of laws and punishments? Seems to me that if people tended to be good, those laws and punishments wouldn't be needed. Also, I am confused by your answer. Are we to choose to do good to, "see someone smile" or because we don't like chaos?

the chaos one.
For the rest of that, you do understand the ratio of good to bad is quite large, right?
Also, your heaven had to cast out some bad apples too, and it is supposed to be considered paradise. Give us some time, crime will eventually disappear. Not to mention, many criminals are victims of poverty and lack of education. Fix those and the crime rate will drop drastically. The bad apples in our society are because we are being bad. If we are good and provide for everyone, then bye bye crime.

Quote:

Now, question for you?
1) How do you know what you think God said is good and bad is real? The bible can and is interpreted in so many ways.

This is an unfortunate side-effect of the Bible being such an important book in the West. You "joked" earlier by alluding to the KKK. That group is an excellent example of how people deliberately misinterpret Scripture to further their own cause. Someone can read the Bible and decide that all men are created equal and deserving of respect, another can read it and decide that whites are a superior race. Why? Because the Bible is so unclear? No, because many who read the Bible (actually, they usually just skim to find some verse which when taken out of context could be misconstrued to mean something ridiculous) are approaching it with a sinister or at least selfish agenda. The Bible used to be (and still is but to a lesser degree) a revered book in the West. Because of this, numerous groups will try to find a way to back up their agendas with Scripture and will do so as recklessly as necessary. I have not found the Bible to be difficult to interpret in terms of its moral teachings. Problems arise when the Bible is approached not as a source of Truth, but as a way to justify an already held position.

Doesn't answer my question. Ok, that is your opinion. But I am sure other Christians think you are the one with some sort of agenda. What makes your view completely unbiased anyway? maybe not all Christians see it as so clear cut.
I'm not even bringing up that there are many other religions with a history longer than yours that have different views. What makes your Christian views of morals better than their's. And if they are the same, how did they come up with them before your book was written?

Finally, I hadn't even thought of the KKK when I posted that. I was thinking of all the witch burnings (some were done with crosses, others with just poles).

peppermint

Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:27 am Post subject:

flakfizer wrote:

Yes it's a theory, but ( from Wikipedia entry on theory):

Quote:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it does in other contexts. Neither is a scientific theory a fact. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, theories, or laws.

Electricity and the Earth orbiting around the sun are theories in the same line.

Evolution has been sumarized as the "survival of the fittest" which sounds very amoral but that's a pretty inadequate summary. It's about adapting to suit the surroundings and passing on successful genetic adaptations to future generations.

A lot of morals that seem self evident are also evolutionary sound. Taking care of your children helps ensure that your genes continue on. it's generally taboo to have sex with close relatives, which can lead to genetic weaknesses and disease- coincidence? Co operation has proven beneficial among species time and again. There are tons of examples of species depending on eachother to survive.

I'm the last person in the world to suggest that ID has a place in schools, but I find it interesting that so many of the basic morals of most cultures are beneficial in evolutionary terms. I'm not sure if I answered your questions, but I hope you can at least see that belief in evolution and having a moral sense aren't mutally exclusive.

Hollywoodaction

Joined: 02 Jul 2004

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:58 am Post subject:

flakfizer wrote:

laogaiguk wrote:

flakfizer wrote:

mithridates wrote:

Satori wrote:

fiveeagles wrote:

Quote:

Fine. There is no problem teaching another theory. It's just we haven't found another one yet. ID is not science.

You are right, it's not, but neither is evolution. They are both theories which have arguments to how and why the universe was created.

No, you are wrong. Evolution is science. It's testable, and the evidence agrees. It has not filled in ALL the gaps yet, but that is not a requirement to qualify as science. It is correct on all the areas it covers. As someone stated before, NO fosil evidence ever found disproves evolution.

Evolution Is Science...Intelligent Design Is Not Science

End of story, now go to your bedroom and pray to Jesus...

I was with you until that last sentence, but you had to go and blow it. Next time try debating a point without being condescending. It's easier than you think.

Yeah, you would think so, wouldn't you. However, there are a great many who cling to evolution out of a profound hatred for religion. Mocking Christianity is a favorite pasttime for many. Of course, this only shows that they are not at all objective.

Ya, we decided the route of mocking was a bit better than the cross burning Christians had for non-religious folk Smile

I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. It sounds like you're referencing the KKK and their cross-burning activities for non-white folk.

But seriously, if people are happy being Christian, I don't understand why anyone would mock them?

Neither do I, but it happens plenty.

In today's age, why destroy someone's happiness unless it is really hurting them or you. The only time I attack Christians is when they decide, quite vocally, that I am going to hell and that I can't possible have any moral foundation at all. This has actually been told to me quite a few times too Sad

I don't believe there is a moral foundation without God. Three basic questions regarding morality are:
1. Are there even such things as right and wrong/good and bad?
2. If there are, how do we know which is which?
3. Even if we know which is which, why choose one over the other?

With an existing God, I would say the answers are:
1. Yes, there are-God says so.
2. We have been instructed by God as to which is which.
3. You will give an account for your deeds.

Without God, I would say the answers are:
1. No, not in a moral sense, as products of chance and evolution, the only "good" is to survive/become stronger.
2. By looking at natural law. Whatever helps you and yours survive, flourish, grow stronger is "good."
3. Choose what is "good" to increase the chances of the survival of your scions.

If you or others disagree, please tell me how you would answer those questions. I really am curious and I'm sure the answers I wrote will be unsatisfactory to many, so let me hear you out.

I'd say scientists aren't the only ones who would disagree with you (and take offence at the answers you've chosen for them). You seem to forget that there is a vast number of cultures around the world that do not follow a belief system based on a monotheistic religon.

1. Yes, good and bad as it is taught to us by our parents and the culture/society in which we grew up and live. These are two of the most basic sociological concepts. Although the lines between good and bad change depending on the social and cultural contexts, the basic concepts of good and bad are found in all societies and cultures (thus transcending religious beliefs).
2. Answer one applies here too.
3. It's a matter of personal choice, the need to follow social and cultural norms, and sanity.

Last edited by Hollywoodaction on Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:24 am; edited 1 time in total

flakfizer

Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:10 am Post subject:

[quote="laogaiguk"]
you shot yourself in the foot by saying that non-religious folk will only do what is needed for survival. Now, if we can (and quite regularily do) overcome that and be good on top of that, then we are actually being better than religious folk who do it out of fear of punishment. OK?

I never said any such thing. I said that without God, there is no foundation for morals. That does not mean that people never do what is morally right. People are complex and often people do the right thing for reasons they don't know, sometimes out of habit, often because they had morals repeatedly taught to them by parents, teachers, after-school specials etc. resulting in a conscience. However, these are not solid foundations for morals. If we do what is right just because it makes us feel good, then how can we criticize someone else who does things we think are bad (like bullying or stealing) but make him feel good? It's fine and well that you are such a swell guy with your own foundation for morals (what was your foundation again?) But if we all just base our morals on our own foundations, we will have very conflicting sets of morals and that will result in the same sort of chaos you mentioned before.

Have you taken a look at nature? Dolphins actually save peoples lives by attacking sharks, doesn't help survival much, does it?

Yes, the dolphins have proven me wrong. In nature we overwhelmingly see species helping out other species with no benefit to themselves, even risking their lives to benefit other species. This is the rule of nature: Survival of the sacrificially helpful.

Quote:

the chaos one.
For the rest of that, you do understand the ratio of good to bad is quite large, right?

I guess that depends on a couple things. What is "good" and "bad?" Is telling a lie bad? Is divorce bad? Is cheating in school bad? Is hurling insults at others bad? If you are just thinking of the "really bad" stuff like murders and rapes and such, according to RAINN, one in six women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape. I'll let you look up child abuse rates and other "really bad" stuff yourself. Now, just imagine how many more serious crimes would take place if there were no fear of punishment. You seem to assume that people who do not fear God's punishment, do not fear the State's punishment and that therefore, people obey the law because they're just plain good. Remove the laws and the penal code and just sit back and see what the ratio of good to bad is.

Give us some time, crime will eventually disappear. Not to mention, many criminals are victims of poverty and lack of education. Fix those and the crime rate will drop drastically. The bad apples in our society are because we are being bad. If we are good and provide for everyone, then bye bye crime.

You're serious? So if people just had more money and more education, they would all be good and get along? Seems people said this kind of stuff a while ago. How much time is needed? My understanding is that we have the ability to wipe out poverty now. Why haven't we? Is it perhaps that people are looking out for their own interests? At least you finally admitted that "we are being bad."

But I am sure other Christians think you are the one with some sort of agenda. What makes your view completely unbiased anyway? maybe not all Christians see it as so clear cut.

Please elaborate this point. What sort of agenda are you talking about? And what is the word "it" referring to in that last sentence?

I'm not even bringing up that there are many other religions with a history longer than yours that have different views. What makes your Christian views of morals better than their's. And if they are the same, how did they come up with them before your book was written?

I haven't said that a Christian view of morals is better than than other religions'. I said that without God, morality has no foundation. I think most Christians would agree that the major differences between our faith and some of the others (Judaism, Islam, Mormonism) is theological, not moral. Major religions have a great deal in common in the area of moral teachings. There are also some similarities regarding reward and punishment. Those three questions I asked at the beginning would probably be answered in similar fashion by a Jew or Muslim. Oh, and as for the "religions with a longer history", which one are you talking about? Obviously, any Christian would say that God spoke to us long before Christ. You might note the Christian Bible includes the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)

Hollywoodaction

Joined: 02 Jul 2004

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:28 am Post subject:

You're confusing instinct with morals. The dolphin attacks because the shark is a threat to the herd.

Satori

Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:06 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I don't "cling" to evolution, I am convinced by the science of it, not out of a profound hatred for religion. Usually I leave christians alone, however I am more inclined to mock them when they start trying to push superstitious belief systems into the science classroom. This does not mean Im not objective.

laogaiguk

Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:

flakfizer wrote:

laogaiguk wrote:

Your questions 3. Even if we know which is which, why choose one over the other?
Your answer(for no god)3. Choose what is "good" to increase the chances of the survival of your scions.

You say the only reason we are good is to increase the chances of survival. But on a quite regular basis, we are good for not only this. Which means we had to overcome our "natural" need to only do good when it benefits us and not bother with good if it doesn't. Now, I regularily do good things. So I overcame my "natural" sense of good which Christians don't have. Therefore me being "good" is more difficult and a greater achievement that you "being" good (you were told what to do and fear of retribution). Now this is nitpicking, but logically you have said by your own answers that if non-religious folk are good beyond what nature tells them to be, they are better. Now, again, to any religious people who do not think themselves as superior or atleast don't go around telling people this (unlike flakfizer), I in no way think that non-religious people are any better or worse than religious. It all depends on individual choice. I don't like organized religion, but I respect any (ofcourse not all) person who gives themselves to other people (like many priests, nuns, etc). I am just pointing out logically he said we are superior Smile

Quote:

Have you taken a look at nature? Dolphins actually save peoples lives by attacking sharks, doesn't help survival much, does it?

[color=red]Yes, the dolphins have proven me wrong. In nature we overwhelmingly see species helping out other species with no benefit to themselves, even risking their lives to benefit other species. This is the rule of nature: Survival of the sacrificially helpful.

Fine, I am wrong on the dolphins. Let's go with human nature withough religion instead.
Ok, you have two kids. Neither has had any religious upbringing whatsoever (China, though I don't agree with the repression of religion). I gave one of them a chocopie and said I only had one (I really only had one) and she immediately broke it in two and shared it. The next day, I did that same (they helped me with stuff so I wanted to reward them) but gave it to the other (not by choice, it just happened he was closer this time). He immediately started to eat it and wasn't going to share. I then said I would never bring chocopies again if he didn't share. He immediately shared. Now, which was the better child? The one who shared without fear of retribution. I knew the children well, and their families weren't closet Christians either. They learned everything from their parents whom had no religious background whatsoever. One kid was bad, one was good.

Quote:

Catholics have removed God's retribution and they are no worse or better than anyone else.

Quote:

Give us some time, crime will eventually disappear. Not to mention, many criminals are victims of poverty and lack of education. Fix those and the crime rate will drop drastically. The bad apples in our society are because we are being bad. If we are good and provide for everyone, then bye bye crime.

You're serious? So if people just had more money and more education, they would all be good and get along? Seems people said this kind of stuff a while ago. How much time is needed? My understanding is that we have the ability to wipe out poverty now. Why haven't we? Is it perhaps that people are looking out for their own interests? At least you finally admitted that "we are being bad."

Quote:

But I am sure other Christians think you are the one with some sort of agenda. What makes your view completely unbiased anyway? maybe not all Christians see it as so clear cut.

Please elaborate this point. What sort of agenda are you talking about? And what is the word "it" referring to in that last sentence?

I don't need to elaborate. Please reread your words

Quote:

This is an unfortunate side-effect of the Bible being such an important book in the West. You "joked" earlier by alluding to the KKK. That group is an excellent example of how people deliberately misinterpret Scripture to further their own cause. Someone can read the Bible and decide that all men are created equal and deserving of respect, another can read it and decide that whites are a superior race. Why? Because the Bible is so unclear? No, because many who read the Bible (actually, they usually just skim to find some verse which when taken out of context could be misconstrued to mean something ridiculous) are approaching it with a sinister or at least selfish agenda. The Bible used to be (and still is but to a lesser degree) a revered book in the West. Because of this, numerous groups will try to find a way to back up their agendas with Scripture and will do so as recklessly as necessary. I have not found the Bible to be difficult to interpret in terms of its moral teachings. Problems arise when the Bible is approached not as a source of Truth, but as a way to justify an already held position.

You say that anyone who doesn't see the morals in the Bible as easy in interpret must have an agenda. But what if those people think the opposite and believe you have an agenda for your ideas of how clear cut it is. How do we prove which person is right?

Quote:

I'm not even bringing up that there are many other religions with a history longer than yours that have different views. What makes your Christian views of morals better than their's. And if they are the same, how did they come up with them before your book was written?

I haven't said that a Christian view of morals is better than than other religions'. I said that without God, morality has no foundation. I think most Christians would agree that the major differences between our faith and some of the others (Judaism, Islam, Mormonism) is theological, not moral. Major religions have a great deal in common in the area of moral teachings. There are also some similarities regarding reward and punishment. Those three questions I asked at the beginning would probably be answered in similar fashion by a Jew or Muslim. Oh, and as for the "religions with a longer history", which one are you talking about? Obviously, any Christian would say that God spoke to us long before Christ. You might note the Christian Bible includes the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)

see Hollywoodaction's post

flakfizer

Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:04 pm Post subject:

laogaiguk wrote:

flakfizer wrote:

laogaiguk wrote:

[color=red]I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding this. I will explain it once more and then move on. I have mentioned that people do good things for many reasons (I talked about childhood teachings, conscience and so on) but I made a distinction between doing good and having a solid, moral foundation. It's kind of like those math teachers that always made you show your work. They didn't just want to see that you arrived at the correct answer, they wanted to see how you arrived there as well. Many people do the right thing because they were taught to. They know what is good but may not know why it is good like a student who copied the right answer, but doesn't know how to arrive at the answer. Our morals have been handed down to us and most (if not all) of that morality was based in religion and in the belief in God. Now, remove God as the foundation, and those values are standing on nothing but tradition. Traditions change quickly when nothing supports them. In the past, people taught that sex was meant only for married couples. Divorce was rare and not very acceptable and so on. Our morals have been increasingly focusing on individualism. Why not sleep around? Why not impregnate as many women as possible? That's good for passing on my genes. When the foundation for morality changes, the morals themselves will change. Without God/religion, what remains as the foundation for our morals? If we were created by God with a purpose, "goodness" is defined by how well we fulfill that purpose. If we are merely the product of evolution, "goodness" is defined by our ability to survive and grow stronger.
Oh, and please show where I ever claimed to be "superior" in any way. You will see that you are the only one who made such a claim. I claimed that I try to do what is good even though I am not good.

Fine, I am wrong on the dolphins. Let's go with human nature withough religion instead.
Ok, you have two kids. Neither has had any religious upbringing whatsoever (China, though I don't agree with the repression of religion). I gave one of them a chocopie and said I only had one (I really only had one) and she immediately broke it in two and shared it. The next day, I did that same (they helped me with stuff so I wanted to reward them) but gave it to the other (not by choice, it just happened he was closer this time). He immediately started to eat it and wasn't going to share. I then said I would never bring chocopies again if he didn't share. He immediately shared. Now, which was the better child?
The one who shared without fear of retribution. I knew the children well, and their families weren't closet Christians either. They learned everything from their parents whom had no religious background whatsoever. One kid was bad, one was good.

Or more likely, one kid learned about sharing before the other. You're assumption is that these two children were exactly the same and had been taught exactly the same values for exactly the same amount of time but one was "good" and the other "bad.". For all you know, the first child used to be like the second, but had already learned the lesson you tried to teach to the second. Have a baby sometime and you will see that sharing is a learned, rather than a natural trait.

Quote:

Catholics have removed God's retribution and they are no worse or better than anyone else.

What are you talking about? Firstly, are you saying that Catholics do not believe in divine punishment? Secondly, that is not even the issue here. You made a claim regarding the ratio of good to bad. I pointed out that 1. there's an awful lot of bad out there (statistically) and 2. All these bad things take place despite the fact there is fear of the State's punishment. Imagine what would happen is the penal codes were done away with. Are you still going to be so confident in how good people are?

Quote:

You obviously have no idea what real poverty is. My family fostered children since I was 9. I have seen poverty that you have no idea is even in our society. I have seen children living worse than most of the poor children in China. I am not talking about giving people more money. I am talking about moving people out of [b]poverty, and if I have to explain this, you won't get it anyways.

I hope you can hear me up there on your high horse. The issue isn't about understanding poverty (although thinking that poverty and money are two completely unrelated topics is odd indeed), the issue is about understanding that education and getting rid of poverty will not do away with crime. Dr. Hwang is not poor and certainly not uneducated. Ironically, liberals (and you seem to incline to the left a bit) have complained for quite some time that the rich and educated are just as immoral as the poor but that their "white collar crimes" are not punished very often or severely. I tend to agree with this. Poverty and lack of education doesn't make people any less moral.

Quote:

see Hollywoodaction's post

flakfizer

Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:11 pm Post subject:

Hollywoodaction wrote:

I'd say scientists aren't the only ones who would disagree with you (and take offence at the answers you've chosen for them). You seem to forget that there is a vast number of cultures around the world that do not follow a belief system based on a monotheistic religon.

It wouldn't have to be based on a monotheistic religion-just founded on religious beliefs. Remove the word "monotheistic" from your last statement and see if you still agree with it.

1. Yes, good and bad as it is taught to us by our parents and the culture/society in which we grew up and live. These are two of the most basic sociological concepts. Although the lines between good and bad change depending on the social and cultural contexts, the basic concepts of good and bad are found in all societies and cultures (thus transcending religious beliefs).
2. Answer one applies here too.
3. It's a matter of personal choice, the need to follow social and cultural norms, and sanity.

Hollywoodaction wrote:

1. Yes, good and bad as it is taught to us by our parents and the culture/society in which we grew up and live. These are two of the most basic sociological concepts. Although the lines between good and bad change depending on the social and cultural contexts, the basic concepts of good and bad are found in all societies and cultures (thus transcending religious beliefs).

First, you and I are not in real disagreement regarding this statement (except the part in parentheses). Without religion, good and bad are taught as you say and are thus continually changing depending on social and cultural contexts. That is why some people in some places at some times believed/believe that forced female circumcision is good, or that killing Jews is good, or that performing human sacrifices is good, or that enslaving others is good, or that "honor killings" are good and so on. We have no foundation on which to stand and say that those actions were bad. They were simply a part of the values that were dependent upon their social and cultural contexts.

2. Answer one applies here too.
3. It's a matter of personal choice, the need to follow social and cultural norms, and sanity.

I'm not clear on the meaning here. Do you mean to say that people have to choose between A. following their society's norms and B. sanity? This would imply that sane people choose not to follow their society's norms. Or do you mean that by choosing to follow society's norm one would remains sane? Are you maintaining that the reason to choose "good" over "bad" is the maintaining of one's sanity? People who choose to bad are insane? Please explain as I feel that I am misunderstanding you.

laogaiguk

Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:44 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding this. I will explain it once more and then move on. I have mentioned that people do good things for many reasons (I talked about childhood teachings, conscience and so on) but I made a distinction between doing good and having a solid, moral foundation. It's kind of like those math teachers that always made you show your work. They didn't just want to see that you arrived at the correct answer, they wanted to see how you arrived there as well. Many people do the right thing because they were taught to. They know what is good but may not know why it is good like a student who copied the right answer, but doesn't know how to arrive at the answer. Our morals have been handed down to us and most (if not all) of that morality was based in religion and in the belief in God. Now, remove God as the foundation, and those values are standing on nothing but tradition. Traditions change quickly when nothing supports them. In the past, people taught that sex was meant only for married couples. Divorce was rare and not very acceptable and so on. Our morals have been increasingly focusing on individualism. Why not sleep around? Why not impregnate as many women as possible? That's good for passing on my genes. When the foundation for morality changes, the morals themselves will change. Without God/religion, what remains as the foundation for our morals? If we were created by God with a purpose, "goodness" is defined by how well we fulfill that purpose. If we are merely the product of evolution, "goodness" is defined by our ability to survive and grow stronger.
Oh, and please show where I ever claimed to be "superior" in any way. You will see that you are the only one who made such a claim. I claimed that I try to do what is good even though I am not good.

Your entire question shows it. People who don't believe in God are incapable of true moral standing. When I do something good, it is because I want to help someone else. What more do you want than that?

I would like to offer a counter arguement though. Maybe we were seeded by aliens who imprinted morals right into our DNA and that would throw your "there is only nature left" theory out the window. I can't prove this (nor do I believe it), but I would love to see how you can disprove this and prove that God exists and has given us morals through the Bible.

Quote:

Or more likely, one kid learned about sharing before the other. You're assumption is that these two children were exactly the same and had been taught exactly the same values for exactly the same amount of time but one was "good" and the other "bad.". For all you know, the first child used to be like the second, but had already learned the lesson you tried to teach to the second. Have a baby sometime and you will see that sharing is a learned, rather than a natural trait.

I can't respond cause you didn't see my point. All of what you just said was completely valid, but my variable was religion (and how it didn't play a part in the decisions, good or bad).

Quote:

What are you talking about? Firstly, are you saying that Catholics do not believe in divine punishment? Secondly, that is not even the issue here. You made a claim regarding the ratio of good to bad. I pointed out that 1. there's an awful lot of bad out there (statistically) and 2. All these bad things take place despite the fact there is fear of the State's punishment. Imagine what would happen is the penal codes were done away with. Are you still going to be so confident in how good people are?

Catholics can at any time go to their priest and be absolved. To me, this gets rid of the divine retribution bit.

Quote:

I hope you can hear me up there on your high horse. The issue isn't about understanding poverty (although thinking that poverty and money are two completely unrelated topics is odd indeed), the issue is about understanding that education and getting rid of poverty will not do away with crime. Dr. Hwang is not poor and certainly not uneducated. Ironically, liberals (and you seem to incline to the left a bit) have complained for quite some time that the rich and educated are just as immoral as the poor but that their "white collar crimes" are not punished very often or severely. I tend to agree with this. Poverty and lack of education doesn't make people any less moral.

I am on a high horse. It's not like you have said that most other Christians are wrong about their interpretation of the bible while it is easy for you or the fact that people who don't agree with your beliefs can't possibly have any moral fibers other than that needed for survival!
Poverty encompasses so much more than money, but I wouldn't expect you to understand this.
As for education, inmates who come out after going through educational programs or get their high school diploma while in jail have a much, much lower probability of not going back to jail. Also, the amount of people who have post-secondary education is a very small population of current inmates. Most trends are showing that education is causing less crime (even white collar crime).
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#jail

flakfizer

Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:32 am Post subject:

laogaiguk wrote:

Quote:

Your entire question shows it. People who don't believe in God are incapable of true moral standing. When I do something good, it is because I want to help someone else.

And why do you want to help someone else? Because you were taught to do thusly or because it is natural? Where did the idea that it is good to help others come from, the evolutionary process, or some other place?

I would like to offer a counter arguement though. Maybe we were seeded by aliens who imprinted morals right into our DNA and that would throw your "there is only nature left" theory out the window. I can't prove this (nor do I believe it), but I would love to see how you can disprove this and prove that God exists and has given us morals through the Bible.

No it wouldn't. It is my understanding that DNA is a part of nature. All animals have it, don't they? Aliens also would simply be a part of nature unless they had always existed, in which case we would simply call them gods. Either there is a being (or beings, if you prefer) who has always been and helped bring about what we now see, or there has always been nature, whether it be terrestrial or not. Without an eternal being, atoms must have formed the universe on their own and life must have formed on its own as well.

Quote:

Catholics can at any time go to their priest and be absolved. To me, this gets rid of the divine retribution bit.

All Christians believe in the forgiveness of confessed sin. That does not mean there is no accountability. One cannot go out and do whatever one wishes, knowing it to be wrong, and try to misuse the grace of God in this fashion. This was an early heresey that Jude mentioned in the Bible.

"For certain men whose condemnation was written about [ Or men who were marked out for condemnation] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality"

Besides, when I answered the three questions, I just said we would be called to account for our actions. That does not include only possible punishment, but also reward.

Quote:

I am on a high horse. It's not like you have said that most other Christians are wrong about their interpretation of the bible (true, I never did say anything like that) while it is easy for you or the fact that people who don't agree with your beliefs can't possibly have any moral fibers other than that needed for survival! I've answered this about three times now. There is a difference between having morals and having a foundation. We have morals because they have been passed down through generations-generations in which nearly everyone believed in some higher being. The idea of a godless universe is quite new in human history. The morals we have inherited were based on religions, now that, "God id dead" those morals will not stand as more and more people accept the idea that there is no god. What will morality be based on in the future? Who knows, that is why it has been said, "If there were no God, we would need to invent one."

Also, I noticed that for the second time you have not dealt with my question about the "goodness" of people. You contended that the good outweighs the bad considerably. I have shown that there is a lot of bad out there (much of it secret) and I contend that there would be a lot more if we removed the penal code. Are you still sticking with the idea that people are basically good?
Poverty encompasses so much more than money, but I wouldn't expect you to understand this.

Of course not. I am but a christian simpleton

As for education, inmates who come out after going through educational programs or get their high school diploma while in jail have a much, much lower probability of not going back to jail. Also, the amount of people who have post-secondary education is a very small population of current inmates. Most trends are showing that education is causing less crime (even white collar crime).
Proving nothing. Crime and immorality are synonymous. Of course there are fewer educated people in prison. One, they are less likely to commit crimes not because they are more moral, but because they fear punishment more as they have much more to lose. Two, when they do commit crimes, they do it more craftily. Three, the crimes they gnerally commit are not the type of crimes that are considered as dangerous to society and are not pursued as hotly. Four, they have better lawyers if they ever go to trial. You maintained that we could say "bye bye crime" when poverty was solved and people were more educated. So, there should be NO educated people committing crimes or doing immoral things.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#jail

khyber

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:08 am Post subject:

hmmm....
I was kinda following everything until flak went a little overboard with the quoting and such...

Why is it that all questions of morality and faith UNDOUBTEDLY end up bringing up the catholic priest question..as if it's the ONLY priest/official bearing religion in the hole earth. Or that the catholic church represents the views of ALL christians.

Quote:

One, they are less likely to commit crimes not because they are more moral, but because they fear punishment more as they have much more to lose.

There are a lot of small problems with all three of your theories: The biggest as i see it is that many crimes are based on crimes of passion (or "spur of the moment") and not necessarily premeditated.
Therefore, fear of punishment means little for an argument.

Quote:

Two, when they do commit crimes, they do it more craftily

that's a stereotype and can't really be proven in any way.

I would agree with 3 though. It seems retarded that an enron official whose embellishment and "miscalcuations" would affects thousands upon THOUSANDS of people, yet a coke dealer won't affect more than a couple dozen.

Quote:

One cannot go out and do whatever one wishes, knowing it to be wrong, and try to misuse the grace of God in this fashion. This was an early heresey that Jude mentioned in the Bible.

I Corinth. 6:12

Quote:

"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.

Quoted again almost verbatim three (?)chapters later.

Quote:

The morals we have inherited were based on religions, now that, "God id dead" those morals will not stand as more and more people accept the idea that there is no god

Quote:

Your entire question shows it. People who don't believe in God are incapable of true moral standing.

flakfizer

Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:36 pm Post subject:

Well, I'm gonna take a break from this board for a while as I have other thing on my plate. Merry...Dec. 25th to all.

flakfizer

Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.

Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:20 am Post subject:

khyber wrote:

hmmm....
I was kinda following everything until flak went a little overboard with the quoting and such...

Quote:

Your entire question shows it. People who don't believe in God are incapable of true moral standing.

completely disagree. I know MANY very moral aetheists. Just because someone doesn't have the same moral "standard" as you, does NOT make them immoral.
There are also many people out there who actually think the Judeo-Xtian code is a great moral code to live by; They just don't think much about the whole God and Jesus thing.

Yes, there has been a lot of quoting, requoting, and misquoting. For example, I agree with what you wrote right there and that is why I never said that "people who don't believe in God are incapable of true moral standing." I also know quite moral people who are not theistic and I know some theists who are not very moral. What I did state, and explained with great pains several times, is that without a God/religion, there is no foundation for morality. Now, many people who don't believe in God can still be quite moral. Most of us are taught about good and bad by our parents, teachers, and others. But I would contend that the morals that have been handed down to us were handed down through generations of religious people. I will focus more on Christianity than other religions because it happens to be the most influencial religion of the society in which I developed. Other societies have been more influenced by other religions, but societies all over the world used to connect morals with religion.
Now, many people today do not believe in God, however, the effects of past generations of belief are still present. Do you think anybody celebrated Christmas this year who doesn't believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Most likely millions did. Do people who are not Christians often get married in churches by clergymen? Yup. Do people who are not christians even sometimes quote Bible verses like, "judge not lest ye be judged" or "Do unto other what you would have them do unto you?" Sure. Morals, sayings, traditions, etc., based on the Christian religion still influence our society-even those who do not believe in God.
Let me try to give an example using weddings. As I mentioned, most people in my country still get married in churches or synagogues even if they are not believers. You may have heard traditional wedding vows and language before that sounded like this:
"Do you solemnly swear to love....till death do you part?"
and, "What God has joined together, let man not put asunder."

These phrases are based on the teachings of Jesus who maintained that marriage was to continue until one or both people died-divorce was not acceptabe (except in the case of marital unfaithfulness, i.e. adultery).

My society no longer takes these words very seriously. Many are getting rid of the old vows and many who use the old vows don't really stick to them because more and more people do not accept this teaching about marriage and divorce. Divorce rates are much, higher than they were a couple generations ago. And now, it is becoming more common to simply cohabitate and skip the whole marriage/divorce thing altogether. A similar issue is premarital sex. A few generations ago, it was still commonly taught that people should wait until marriage, but these days, that notion is seen as old-fashioned and almost silly by many. The morality of sex, marriage and divorce is no longer closely linked to religion, and so the values have been redefined. Now, many may think these are good changes. I am not going to deal with that aspect right now, my point is that through thousands and thousands of years, people around the world had moral systems that were attached to their religions. These days, more people are choosing to practice no religion at all. To be sure, thousands of years of relgious effect will not be undone in such a short time, but it has started and will continue, I believe. So, my three questions are valid. After eons of religion-based morals, what will morality be based on if not religion? Would there even be such a thing as morality? Does the natural world demand moralness? Does the universe care what I do? What will be the new foundation for morals if the old foundation is rejected? Without God, I honestly cannot think of anything accept Nature. And I Natures law do not seem to concern themselves too much with "good" and "bad" but rather with "strong" and "weak."

.

tomato

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.

Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 4:48 am Post subject:

Hello, Flakfizer!

And thank you for your invitation!
I shall try to be a congenial guest.

Quote:

Three basic questions regarding morality are:
1. Are there even such things as right and wrong/good and bad?
2. If there are, how do we know which is which?
3. Even if we know which is which, why choose one over the other?

1. Yes indeed. Every higher animal species has an orderly system.
The orderly system is set by evolution.

Take monogamy, for example. There are two factors which determine monogamy in a species. One is susceptibility to venereal disease, the other is length of childhood. Our species is susceptible to venereal disease, and we have the longest childhood of any species on earth. Consequently, those populations which did not observe monogamy died out and those populations which did observe monogamy survived. So the monogamists were left to hand down their genes to us.

2. By following our instincts.

3. We are deterred partly by the discomfort from the violation itself, and partly by the reactions of the other members of our population. Just as animals of other species deal with members who get out of line.

Quote:

With an existing God, I would say the answers are:
1. Yes, there are-God says so.
2. We have been instructed by God as to which is which.
3. You will give an account for your deeds.

I figured on your answer to #1.

Regarding #2, our instincts were firmly established millions of years before Moses came down from the mountain. Not only our species, but various other species turned monogamous long before all this palaver about "joining in holy matrimony."

Regarding #3, I would like to ask you a question, not to heckle, but out of genuine curiosity: I understand the Bible to say that you should "love thy neighbor as thyself." This means that a good deed is more valuable if it is done out of genuine love than if it is done for some selfish motive. The selfish motive could be desire for recognition, desire for reciprocity, or the need to "feel useful." The desire for blessing or the fear of damnation are also selfish motives. Why, then, does the Bible tell us about heaven and hell?

I can't think of a single religion which doesn't appeal to selfish motives. If you meditate long enough on the sound of one hand clapping, you will attain nirvana. If you ram an airplane into the World Trade Center, you will land in the bosom of Abraham. If you get married in a Mormon temple, you will become god of your own solar system.

Quote:

Without God, I would say the answers are:
1. No, not in a moral sense, as products of chance and evolution, the only "good" is to survive/become stronger.
2. By looking at natural law. Whatever helps you and yours survive, flourish, grow stronger is "good."
3. Choose what is "good" to increase the chances of the survival of your scions.

I agree. This is a perfect description of evolution, but it is also a perfect description of religion. By observing the Ten Commandments, our species survives, becomes stronger, flourishes, and increases the chances of the survival of our scions. Your Renaissance artwork and your Baroque organ music is all very beautiful, but I see little other difference between religion and science.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe