• Re: o, y

    From Burkhard@21:1/5 to Ron Dean on Mon Jan 15 14:00:15 2024
    On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 9:37:40 PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
    broger...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 1:52:39 AM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
    jillery wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 22:49:30 -0500, Ron Dean
    <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:

    jillery wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:44:16 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
    <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

    On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 6:52:35?PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>> Burkhard wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 3:27:34?AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 12:57:33?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jillery wrote:
    On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 17:29:26 -0500, Ron Dean
    <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:

    jillery wrote:
    On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:00:43 -0500, Ron Dean
    <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:

    <snip for focus>

    You say the evidence can be fitted within the ID concept. Then do so,
    using all the evidence, instead of cherry-picking what you can fit,
    and handwaving away what you can't, as other cdesign proponentsists
    do.

    You can make such accusations, but proving your charges against me, is
    another matter.


    Do everybody a favor and focus on your own accusations and claims, if
    only for the novelty of the experience.

    IOW you cannot!


    You mean YOU won't. You continue to meet my expectations. >>>>>>>>>>>>

    What accusations can you point to, that I should I focus on? >>>>>>>>>>>>

    To accomodate your convenient amnesia:
    ***************************************
    On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 15:33:02 -0400, Ron Dean
    <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:

    This in part makes my case. Since evolution often leads to atheism,
    this explains why atheism discounts right or wrong. So, slavery,
    abortion, infanticide is neither right or wrong. There is no common
    moral grounds for evolution or atheism.
    **************************************

    Ok, what is the _common_ grounds for morality that's shared throughout
    all of atheism.

    People, atheists or not, generally agree on major moral issues - murder is wrong, cooperating is good, taking care of your kids is good, etc.

    Why? Murder is illegal in the US, but why is is morally wrong? >>>>>>>>

    You don't know that? That's really worrying!

    So, you turn that around on me! That was _my_ complaint.

    If you understood why murder is morally wrong, you would not ask]the question,
    or wonder why atheists and theist typically agree that (many forms of)
    murder are wrong.


    ISTM B.Rogers hit it on the nose elsethread:
    ***********************************
    You seem to think that admitting we are animals means that there's no >>>>> reason to behave morally. That's nonsense. You seem to share with a >>>>> number of evangelicals I have known the idea that if we are not the >>>>> special creation of a personal God, the purpose for which the universe >>>>> was created, then life had no meaning and there's no morality. That's >>>>> your own failure of imagination, not a consequence of the theory of >>>>> evolution.
    **********************************

    In history and perhaps even today, tribes of people who kill and eat >>>> other people. How do we apply our morality to people who practice
    cannibalism. Is this immoral; if so why? After all, we are nothing more >>>> than animals that evolved along with and from other animals. Do you >>>> think that people involved in cannibalism had any moral concerns, more >>>> so than than animals.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=people+who+eat+people+facts&va=b&t=hr&ia=web >>>

    You keep asking the same question. I and others keep explaining to
    you that evolution and morality have NOTHING to do with each other. As >>> far as I'm concerned, you might as well ask if its moral for the Sun
    to shine. Seriously, what's your point?

    So here's some questions for you:

    1. How do you think ToE and morality are involved with each other?
    Specifically, do you think people who eat other people do so because
    they accept ToE? Can you consider the likelihood they do so for
    reasons having nothing whatever to do with ToE?
    ...........................
    According to ToE we are nothing more than evolved animals, so can you
    condemn cannibals on their practice of killing and eating humans? No,
    you cannot! You have _NO_ moral grounds to do so!


    Of course I can condemn cannibalism. I say that all people should be treated as we would treat our own group. Killing people and eating them is not how we would treat our friends and family. It's wrong.

    But you do _not_ say why it's wrong if it were to serve _our purpose.
    This is your opinion, but do you have the right to force your opinion on people who practice cannibalism? If you think so. on what moral grounds?
    It nothing more than your opinion, which you are entitled to as it
    applies to you and your life. But there is _no_ moral basis for it.

    I'll remind you that many groups who actually practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism on a large scale did so without the benefit of the theory of evolution and did it on the basis of religious justification.

    Paganism! Not all religions are the same. I personally think deistism is
    the _ only_ rational position to have. For the simple we _cannot_ CAN
    NOT know.

    In any case, I am perfectly free to condemn cannibalism, whether or not you think I have a proper justification for doing so.

    OK, but this is not so much about you think, since your thoughts have absolutely _no_ bearing upon what people who practice cannibalism think
    and practice, So it's pointless. You have no moral justification to
    impose your opinion on such people. IOW you cannot claim they have no
    right to engage in this practice. So, in reality, you have nothing to
    say about it.

    And this has caused me some personal discomforts, I see myself in the
    much same light because of what I know and what I think I know.

    My guess is that you endorse things that some religions consider
    cannibalism. Members of these religions also think that their religion
    gives them the moral right to force you to abide by their rules.
    Do you think the fact that they are theists entitles them to that position?



    2. Do you think swapping ToE with ID/Creationism would make people
    more moral? Specifically, do you think people would stop eating other >>> people if they accepted ID/Creationism? Would it be enough for you if >>> they just felt really, really bad about doing it?

    Whether they would or not, it has nothing to do with the issue I
    mentioned. It's just an attempt at escape. In fact since we are just
    animals ToE tends to undermine morality. From an evolutionary basis
    there is _NO_ grounds for one animal killing and eating another
    morality. It happens in the
    natural world and we are animals in the natural world. If evolution is
    reality there's nothing special about us animals.


    If
    someone decides to rob store, it's to his advantage not to leave >>>>>>>>> witnesses, "Survival" comes into play, why is morally wrong for him to
    not leave witnesses to testify against him in a court of law? >>>>>>>>>>
    You emphasized _common_ moral ground. There are differences in how people regard specific moral issues, abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, how far a duty to help others extends, etc. But religious people do not agree about these things
    among themselves, so there's no more _commonality_ among the religious than there is among atheists. Morality does not come from religion, even for religious people, it comes from our natural moral sentiments. If you need the Bible to tell you that
    murder is wrong, there's something wrong with you.

    Or do a search on any post where I reminded you to be mindful of your
    legacy on this Earth. Or are you going to blame these comments of
    yours on your doppelganger?

    --
    To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>



    --
    To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge


    --
    To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?=@21:1/5 to Ron Dean on Fri Jan 26 04:05:24 2024
    On Friday 26 January 2024 at 02:07:50 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
    Burkhard wrote:
    On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 9:37:40 PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
    broger...@gmail.com wrote:
    (snip)

    If you understood why murder is morally wrong, you would not ask]the question,
    or wonder why atheists and theist typically agree that (many forms of)
    murder are wrong.


    ISTM B.Rogers hit it on the nose elsethread:
    ***********************************
    You seem to think that admitting we are animals means that there's no
    reason to behave morally. That's nonsense. You seem to share with a >>>>>>> number of evangelicals I have known the idea that if we are not the >>>>>>> special creation of a personal God, the purpose for which the universe
    was created, then life had no meaning and there's no morality. That's
    your own failure of imagination, not a consequence of the theory of >>>>>>> evolution.
    **********************************

    In history and perhaps even today, tribes of people who kill and eat >>>>>> other people. How do we apply our morality to people who practice >>>>>> cannibalism. Is this immoral; if so why? After all, we are nothing more
    than animals that evolved along with and from other animals. Do you >>>>>> think that people involved in cannibalism had any moral concerns, more
    so than than animals.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=people+who+eat+people+facts&va=b&t=hr&ia=web

    we are nothing more than evolved animals, so can you
    condemn cannibals on their practice of killing and eating humans? No, >>>> you cannot! You have _NO_ moral grounds to do so!


    Of course I can condemn cannibalism. I say that all people should be treated as we would treat our own group. Killing people and eating them is not how we would treat our friends and family. It's wrong.

    But you do _not_ say why it's wrong if it were to serve _our purpose.
    This is your opinion, but do you have the right to force your opinion on >> people who practice cannibalism? If you think so. on what moral grounds? >> It nothing more than your opinion, which you are entitled to as it
    applies to you and your life. But there is _no_ moral basis for it.

    I'll remind you that many groups who actually practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism on a large scale did so without the benefit of the theory of evolution and did it on the basis of religious justification.

    Paganism! Not all religions are the same. I personally think deistism is >> the _ only_ rational position to have. For the simple we _cannot_ CAN
    NOT know.

    In any case, I am perfectly free to condemn cannibalism, whether or not you think I have a proper justification for doing so.

    OK, but this is not so much about you think, since your thoughts have
    absolutely _no_ bearing upon what people who practice cannibalism think >> and practice, So it's pointless. You have no moral justification to
    impose your opinion on such people. IOW you cannot claim they have no
    right to engage in this practice. So, in reality, you have nothing to
    say about it.

    And this has caused me some personal discomforts, I see myself in the
    much same light because of what I know and what I think I know.

    My guess is that you endorse things that some religions consider cannibalism. Members of these religions also think that their religion gives them the moral right to force you to abide by their rules.
    Do you think the fact that they are theists entitles them to that position?

    Of course not! I stand in opposition to organized religion, so why would
    I think any religion has the right to force anyone to do anything? But,
    I'm convinced that religion, unfortunately, does take control over
    peoples lives, and religion accomplishes this by their proclaimed _authority_. A person or the leaders claims to have been given the
    _sole_ and the exclusive right by God to represent him on Planet Earth.
    They send out missionaries who use this bully pulpit to create doubt
    even distress in other church members which they term "non-believer". I entertained three "missionaries" who
    out of the blue, came knocking on my front door a few months ago. I knew something about this sect, but I wanted to hear their message, It did
    not go well and after two different times they left.

    You may be baptized, taken the sacraments in your religion. But the "missionaries" will insist your baptism and sacraments were unrecognized
    by God because they were not performed by an authorized representative
    of God. Certain religions use this idea or authority, as a threat that's above people's head like Damascus's sword, that's held by a thread.
    People who become convinced by these missionaries are the re-baptized
    and accept the power and authority of the church leaders, to have
    control over their minds, their thoughts, their lives and their futures.

    They force people who accept this claim of "authority" into submission
    or obedience to them, IE their laws and their rituals and obedience to
    these authorities as God's representatives. I think this applies mainly
    to religions with a figure head at the top.

    I think back to the time I heard the Christian message. There was
    nothing about authority. According to what I had learned, was that Jesus Christ was crucified, suffered and died on the cross strictly for our benefit - that is for the forgiveness of our sins. And sin alone is sufficient to remove one from the presence of God forever. In order to
    be saved, it took nothing more than belief or faith in Christ and his sacrifice for ones salvation. And "authority" is totally unnecessary.
    In my opinion, religious authority is nothing more than a power grab!

    Personally, I completely abandoned Christianity during my younger days.
    I became a doubter, a questioner, but I did have very serious doubts,
    maybe I became agnostic, but I was never a full blown atheist, There are things that's happened in my life that causes me to re-think my
    position. To some degree TO has been instrumental in my considerations. There are too many things that I've learned that are not rationally answered, yet they are real. I have no faith that a natural cause or explanation will ever happen.

    Science does not try to suggest what you should do or avoid doing,
    who you should believe or how you should behave. It does not claim
    that theism is wrong or that God does not exist. It only collects and systematises facts about our world and tries to find out working
    relations between those facts. Science does not answer where it
    does not have answers. Lack of answer is normal and default
    situation for science.

    Anti-theistic world-views and philosophies compete with theism.
    These give you answer. "God is nonsense. Folklore. There are no
    such thing. Only idiots think that someone watches very closely
    what you do, never communicates with you but after you die
    punishes you." That is philosophical-political answer, not
    scientific.

    So your three mistakes:
    1) You want to argue with anti-theistic philosphies using that
    science denial garbage. Most of them do not care about
    biology. Their position is that your God is full idiocy. And
    that YOU have no science that shows that it is not.
    2) You accuse science not giving you detailed answers to every
    question. Science is not meant to.
    3) You avoid studying answers given to you. It is not fault of
    science that the books are too thick, articles too complex and
    your time too short.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)