I doubt every atheist would ever say that, what is more likely is they will tell you that they believe in the theory of evolution (which is demonstrably proven to be accurate) and the darwinian natural selection (funnily enough, also proven to be accurate via testable and provable means).
Yet your invisible cosmic wizard magical book can’t even tell you about germ theory (which would have saved countless lives), let alone anything else noteworthy.
All it does it make claims that are as unproven as they are total bollocks.
Oh look, it’s the peddling of more apologetic lies. Which I KNOW are lies, because I’ve been dealing with them repeatedly here and elsewhere for the past 14 years.
First of all, you’ve resurrected Canard #5 and Canard #10 simultaneously from this long list of creationist canards that I linked to here some time ago. In particular, when dealing with Canard #10, I provided an extensive dissertation with respect to what scientists actually mean when they use the word “random”, as opposed to duplicitous mythology fanboy misrepresentations thereof. Since it’s obvious you need the requisite schooling, I suggest you read that document in full, and learn that the canards you keep bringing here not only are canards, but have been known to be such for a long time, in some cases for decades.
I also refer you to the instruction contained within my coverage of Canard #5, which in your case, will probably require you to devote at least two decades to the matter of learning what scientists actually postulate, on topics ranging from cosmological physics to evolutionary biology, instead of spooning up the lies on this matter peddled by various “pastors”, or whichever sleazy creationist websites you patronise.
Oh, and as for the origin of life, I provided another extensive dissertation on that subject that you can read here, in which I cover the fact that every chemical reaction implicated in the origin of life works, and has been demonstrated to do so experimentally in the laboratory. That particular exposition references no less than eighy-two peer reviewed scientific papers, including the four papers I was introduced to recently, that was published by a team of Japanese scientists. Who, in those papers, demonstrated not only that their RNA strands self-replicated when supplied with nucleotides, but underwent Darwinian evolution and generated their own molecular ecosystem.
In case you never learned this at school, chemical reactions aren’t a matter of “chance”, they are well defined interactions that take place, the moment relevant energy conditions are fulfilled. For many chemical reactions, all that is required is for the reactants to be in aqueous solution together at room temperature, and they will react, courtesy of the reactions in question being exothermic.
Now, how much more basic science do you want to demonstrate you know nothing about?
What about healing? I know a person who has an autoimmune disorder. His platelet count dips for unknown reasons. Platelets are needed to stop bleeding and a normal count is ~150,000. If they are low you are susceptible to internal bleeding/bruising. He told me in 2012 his platelets dipped & they were undetectable, the doctors didn’t know what to do and the medicine they had at the time was not working. He prayed and they shot up. He didn’t tell the doctor God did it and they dipped again to a dangerous level once again. He prayed and told God this time he would say God did it, they shot up and he told the doctor it was God and they stayed up.
Not only is this anecdotal evidence which holds no more weight then simply saying, “well my mate said…”
But, just to note… you said your friends platelets dip.
Now, if they dip, but way of very simple logic, when they don’t dip, they are normal… so it’s unsurprising that even after praying your friends platelets went back up at some point… this is ‘par for the course’.
What would have been more impressive would be if your friends condition was medically irreversible and untreatable, yet he prayed and your god completely relived him of his condition, no?!
Providing you could provide irrefutable proof of something like that, then you may have a point that’s worthy of consideration.
Do you even hear what you are saying, (Unknown Reasons). And when they return to their normal state is that also for yet unknown reasons? Every single time. Without exception. When we find the actual reason. It has NEVER been ‘Miracle.’ Never.
PDW (platelet distribution width) is implicated - either directly or indirectly - in the neurobiology of depression and comorbid disorders. However, the significance of this parameter in relation to platelet function in non-pathological settings (i.e., in general population studies) remains largely unknown.
In short, it is linked to all sorts of emotional states for unknown reasons. Joining a church and having a social outlet leads to perfect sense in a decrease of symptoms. Given the best available information. NO GOD NEEDED. He might have been able to join a bowling league and gotten the same results.
Prayer or God are not options until you can demonstrate that they are effective in any way. Nearly all the research indicates prayer is as effective as a coin flip.
I don’t believe you, but even if you had bothered to offer a shred of objective evidence to support this anecdote, all you would have AGAIN is an inexplicable event. it seems you don’t want to understand what an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is, or what it means, but I do know what it is, and I also know what it means.
Even were we to assume your anecdote to have any credence, it would be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, since you would still need to demonstrate some objective evidence that the result was caused by the unevidenced superstition of prayer. Again you may want to ignore this fact, but I cannot.
Another unevidenced anecdote, and again a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
And yet another unevidenced anecdotal claim, and yet another post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Search the internet for common logical fallacies, learn what they mean, and learn what objective evidence is. Until you do, your unevidenced anecdotal claims based on known logical fallacies are meaningless, and you might as well be claiming you have an invisible pet unicorn that grants wishes.
In order to illustrate both the rigour applied to the experiments in question by the authors of the paper, and the duplicity involved in the lame attempt above at summary apologetic dismissal of the relevant chemistry (SPECIAL NOTE: these experiments were performed NINETEEN YEARS AGO, and any problems associated with the relevant chemistry were solved in this paper), I’ll provide some additional material. Starting with direct snapshots of the two reaction schemes covered in the paper. First, here is Scheme 1:
Note how the authors validated key steps in their analysis of the proposed reaction mechanism via additional experiments in what follows, which is an extended verbatim extract from the paper in question. In the interests of rigour, the paper is this one:
Carbonyl Sulphide Mediated Prebiotic Formation Of Peptides by Luke Leman, Leslie Orgel and M. Reza Ghadiri, Science, 306: 283-286 (8th October 2004)
So, let’s take a look at what the authors have to offer, shall we?
So, the authors not only demonstrated that COS is an effective catalyst for the formation of peptides under prebiotic conditions, but they also validated the proposed reaction mechanisms via additional test experiments. Furthermore, they reported that their synthesised chains of amino acids were sufficiently resilient to hydrolysis to persist for extended periods of time in aqueous solution. In addition, there is NO mention whatsoever of the need to protect side chains, which are completely unaffected by the reaction mechanism in question.
And at this point, I’m starting to wonder if our resident mythology fanboy is cribbing his fake “gotchas” from the Duplicity Institute, only this is the sort of mendacious misrepresentation of science that is their well-documented stock in trade. I think we should be told if this is indeed the case.
Yeh, good point, that’s why hospitals only serve atheists nowadays. The religious don’t need them. I’m setting up a GoFundMe page for all the Doctors, Surgeons, Radiographers and Nurses that are so suddenly unemployable.
The morals are not subjective, and the ultimate goals of our species are all the same; food, sex, warmth, status.
Going about obtaining those four things in a way that does not harm others is good and moral. Harming others in the pursuit of those things is objectively immoral. Why? Because it’s unnecessary.
That’s not what I meant. Clearly, that is not what I meant. I meant the values were infinite, immeasurable, and that they are also attainable. And once attained lead a person to behave without cruelty.
Uh uh. No. They are unmistakable attributes of human beings. Something ingrained in our environment. We are perceptive to these things. They are as objective as the colour red is objective.
It’s a fundamental part of being human. As such it is an objective standard for morality.
So, we no longer require food, sex, warmth, and status? What do we instead require?
When was the last time you diverged from your urge to eat?
Who gives a fuck about society breaking down? What if a group of people share the moral that society should crash and burn?
It would be interesting if you could produce a post where you disclosed your age to everyone. Are you so sure you even have?
Clearly I have no grasp of their meaning.
Just that violence tends to get people what they want, contrary to the idea that virtue has its rewards.
Sorry. Let’s use the word “function”. What is the function; what is the mechanism by which this bundle of nerves and neurons creates the illusion that the pain is in my crotch. What is pain? How is the illusion created?
Oh dear, I have demonstrated again and again that they are, all anyone need do is read the thread.
Nazis the KKK, the Westborough Baptist church ISIS, Serbian right wing orthodox Christians etc etc etc…your only response is to make the same subjective claim they are “wrong”, otherwise you have failed to counter these obvious examples that demonstrate clearly humans hold different and subjective notions of right and wrong, that are relative, and you have failed to offer even one example of objective morality, only offering a subjective example.
You tried to claim morality was universally based on love and compassion, and I demonstrated with examples it was not, even your own, the ensuing semantics by redefining the word universal to mean something it does not has also failed to demonstrate objective morality.
That’s yet another example of a subjective moral claim, dear oh dear.
No it isn’t, it is a subjective opinion. Again I have offered countless examples that refute the claim.
No they are not the ultimate goals of our species, they are a means to an end and a subjective choice, only food is necessary to our survival btw, and choosing to obtain these without harming others is a subjective moral choice.
Well that is what you said, and it fitted the context. However you have failed to offer a cogent alternative, and simply delved into woo woo claims about human emotions.
That’s a bare and subjective claim.
Choosing to base one’s morals on such emotions would be a subjective choice.
Those human emotions are not infinite, clearly.
Describing those emotions as immeasurable, still sounds like they are simply open to subjective interpretation.
Which is again demonstrably false, since Nazi camp guards went home after committing mass murder devoid of any love or compassion, and then displayed both to their loved ones. ISIS members who displayed love and compassion to their loved ones, displayed none to infidels who fell under their sway, the same for right wing Serbian orthodox Christians, I could go on of course, but these examples amply destroy your bare unevidenced assertion.
Quod erat demonstrandum, again.
How does being human attributes exclude them from being open to subjective interpretation? FYI anger, violence, intolerance, hatred, indifference are all human attributes, so again choosing what to base our morals on remains a subjective choice.
You have heard of colour blindness yes? In some rare cases there are people who can see no colours at all, so that’s a poor choice as it is not objectively true, but relative. However it is irrelevant to the fact that our moral choices and what we choose to base them on are subjective.
So are hatred, anger, violence intolerance etc etc., so it remains a subjective choice, to base your morality on such notions and emotions, and again countless examples have been offered as evidence.
Straw man fallacy since that was not what I claimed, however are you saying sex isn’t a choice, or seeking warmth, or subjective notions of status? You’re kidding right, it’s another of your attempts at levity, at least I hope it is. Here for clarity then is your original claim:
No moral system need have those as their aim, and even if they did it would be a subjective choice, and no they’re not “necessary” since one could easily live without sex warmth or subjective notions of social status, indeed many people do make this subjective choice, I’d have though a Buddhist would know that? People have even made a subjective moral choice to do without food, Gandhi, the Suffragettes, IRA prisoners, to name but a few made a subjective moral choice to starve themselves in the name of a cause they believed to be more of a moral imperative than food. Either way these moral choices are subjective.
Every time I diet to lose a few pounds, why do you ask? Are you suggesting one could not do this, I suggest you scroll up for examples of people who were prepared to die doing this as a moral choice they subjectively felt was greater than their innate need for sustenance.
I’d imagine most people who chose to live in societal groups would, but fail to see what this has to do with your question "why it is necessary to punish people, which I answered.
People do hold such views, even groups of people, have you never heard of Nihilism? How about terrorist organisations, do you think the primary subjective motive of their morality is a cohesive society?
Then you might better argue if you learned what they mean, a cursory look at their definitions would take a few seconds.
Does it? I think virtue had best be it’s own reward, and violence in my opinion, whilst often being self serving is not always so, it also often simply leads ultimately to reciprocity in an escalating cycle. The perception of gain is usually transitory if one uses violence. Though not always of course, since violence can go and has gone unpunished. Ultimately it is a subjective notion that violence is immoral, and you have already agreed it is relative, remember you said what you would do to someone who threatened your family? You also agreed the appalling violence against Nazism and fascism was morally justified. So the subjective notion that violence is immoral is relative see?
Just Google the neurological and anatomical explanations. Why would you think pain illusory? We are born with a pain threshold, but they differ, pain tolerance however is something one can increase. The pain does occur where the receptors indicate as does the damage, but is experienced in and by the brain, which interprets the stimuli.
I understand your position. I’d say that on a provisional level it’s accurate. What you don’t comprehend are the moral values that I’m advocating. All you’ve done is complained that I’ve used the word “universal” incorrectly or inaccurately to describe them.
All I’m advocating is a distinct feeling (four distinct feelings in fact) which are available to all humans. I use the word “love” or “compassion” in a non-relative sense. These are the only words available. Sure, those words are used to describe a range of emotions and actions and words … but you don’t seem to acknowledge that I’m specifically addressing a set of four distinct emotions which establish the same moral system when adopted.
Ie. a hardened criminal could come to know these four emotions and, under those circumstances, radically change his moral view of the world.
I’m not saying that people don’t have different moral values. I’m just saying that there is a foundation upon which one can build a very non-violent and benevolent attitude towards the world.
However, the history of mankind is engulfed in murder, war, rape, etc. it’s not unusual at all to find these types of moral attitudes in the world. And sure. Tell a rapist that he’s a sinner and he’ll laugh at you. No one is in a position to judge.
But, we do judge. And we elect official governmental entities to enact laws which are put into effect by the legal system under certain authorities.
Then again, in the Nuremberg trials, certain Nazis were given capital punishment for war crimes, and yet no one was held accountable for the dessamation of Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
So, my question to you is this: what is the relationship between morality, power, authority, and punishment?
If you will, I would like to understand your opinion on these interrelated ideas.
No. I used the word “universal” in the wrong sense. I did t mean “universal morality based on love and compassion”. I meant “universal love and compassion which made cruelty impossible”. Do you not see the distinction?
Clearly you don’t know the feelings I am talking about. They are objective in the sense that EVERYONE who feels them agrees on what they are. Regardless of what you call it, the feelings I am talking about cannot be mistaken for one thing or another. It is like when two people see the same colour. If they have proper vision they will always agree on the colour. Deficiencies in vision restrict people from seeing colour. Those restrictions do not alter the colour itself. These emotions I am speaking of are the same as that.
Fine. Agreed. My meaning here is that choosing to base one’s morals on those emotions leads to universal non-cruelty and benevolence.
Is space infinite? Or at least beyond our ability to measure? These are external realities perceived by humans. The fact that you’ve gone your whole life without noticing that other dimensions exist is not evidence that they are not there. It is evidence that you are non-percipient.
They cannot be mistaken for other things. Cal them whatever you like. When two people who have experienced these things meet to discuss them, they will agree on what they are.
That’s fine. Then we have arrived at moral nihilism. There is no intrinsic reward for good and no intrinsic punishment for bad, not only because morality in general is an empty concept, but also because the idea of good and bad depend on the person or group of people.
I understand your view. I simply don’t subscribe to moral nihilism. I have a better understanding of crime and punishment. We are punished by those in authority. Those in authority have been given positions of power. Those with power may do as they see fit. Handing down punishments for immoral deeds is one of those things.
The spectrum of human emotions is not infinite. We have finite characteristics. In a finite system, values can be compared. Choosing a moral system founded on hatred doesn’t exempt you from the consequences of hatred. Or, would you say that such consequences are incidental?
It doesn’t erase the colour. It simply points to an evolutionary mistake in the mechanics of the eye.
Right. And there is no intrinsic difference between a morality based on hatred and anger, versus a morality based on love and compassion?
Because the words mean the same things at times? Because there’s no way to reward love and compassion or punish hatred and anger? Or, because the consequences of such diametrically opposed value systems are simply “relative”?
Yeah. Everything you’ve been saying up to this point is moral nihilism. The idea that there is no objective good and no objective bad, and no reward for good and no punishment for bad, means that you can go up one bank of the Ganges slaughtering and massacring the people there and go down the other bank of the Ganges giving to the poor and supporting the weak and those in need, and there would be no guilt on one side, or a sense of justice on the other.
If you’re interested in the history of moral nihilism in India at the time of the Buddha
As an example of Purana’s beliefs, in the Samannaphala Sutta (DN 2) it is reported that Purana said:
"…[I]n acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting others to torture, in inflicting sorrow or in getting others to inflict sorrow, in tormenting or getting others to torment, in intimidating or getting others to intimidate, in taking life, taking what is not given, breaking into houses, plundering wealth, committing burglary, ambushing highways, committing adultery, speaking falsehood — one does no evil. If with a razor-edged disk one were to turn all the living beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh, a single pile of flesh, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the right bank of the Ganges, killing and getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to mutilate, torturing and getting others to torture, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the left bank of the Ganges, giving and getting others to give, making sacrifices and getting others to make sacrifices, there would be no merit from that cause, no coming of merit. Through generosity, self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from that cause, no coming of merit.'[3]
The Anguttara Nikaya also reports that Purana claimed to be omniscient. The Dhammapadacommentary claims that Purana died by drowning himself.[4]
Clearly. Thank you.
I think it’s real. I struggle with the notion that I am intrinsically wrong when I think a pain in my crotch is actually in my crotch (as opposed to being a facet of my brain).
I don’t think you have that same question figured out your self there.
And Cog is 73 years old by the way. Born in ‘50 or ‘49
Not sure what else is to argue on that point now, since you have reversed your original position.
I’ve gone my whole life without perceiving mermaids, is this then evidence of my flawed perception and their reality? You are using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again. Can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support the existence of the things you are claiming are real?
They are open to subjective interpretation, lets try an example, parental love seems to involve beating their children to some fathers, to others this would be horrifying. They both believe they love their children. Subjective see?
We haven’t arrived anywhere it is one example of a subjective moral outlook. One need not be a Nihilist just to acknowledge that good and bad are subjective notions, or that reward and punishment for behaviour is relative.
I don’t believe it is an “empty concept”, only that it is subjective. I happen to think morality is a vita and important concept to humans, and that life would likely be unbearable without it.
Well there you go, I have been trying to explain this for many days, our morals are both relative and subjective.
It’s not my view, it was used in answer to your question what if groups of people existed who didn’t care about the collapse of society. I am not a Nihilist, though Nihilism contains ideas that seem demonstrably correct.
Better than what? You have for days been incorrectly arguing that such notions are objective, so I don’t think your hubris is justified.
I never said it was, it was you who claimed human emotions like love and compassion were infinite? I do not share that belief. Since the emotions stem from us, and we are finite both as individuals and as a species.
Why are you telling me this, I explained this to you when I stated that violence was often reciprocal in nature, and often descended into a continuing cycle?
Incidental to what? I have already explained that without any consequences to actions societies would likely disintegrate very quickly.
There are vast differences I’d say, but the point is these are all subjective and relative evaluations.
No, the words mean what most people think they mean, that is how definitions are compiled, love is defined as “an intense feeling of deep affection” so the definition is open to a wide range of emotions that would fit that description. How we apply it then must necessarily be subjective.
Not even close, nor am I a Nihilist. Though some of the ideas within Nihilism seem correct, the idea that there is no objective basis for morality for example. Here is proper context then:
You asked if morality is subjective why do we punish people.
I said societies would likely collapse pretty quickly if there were no consequences to actions.
You then asked what if groups of people existed who didn’t care about the collapse of society.
I said such people and groups did exist, and offer Nihilists as one example.
This does not mean I am a Nihilist, or that I am championing Nihilism. Though again some ideas contained with it seem demonstrably correct. What people choose to do with them however would be subjective.
The Merrifield peptide synthesis process (which, incidentally, lends itself well to automation, and has been improved dramatically in the years since it was first invented) is irrelevant to prebiotic synthesis pathways because [1] it’s a solid state synthesis process involving synthetic resins to which the peptide is bound during the synthesis process, none of which have natural analogues, and [2] it uses powerful reagents (hydrogen fluoride being one of the more important ones) of a sort that would never be considered as viable prebiotic reagents.
Indeed, one of the reasons that side chain protection is needed in a Merrifield synthesis, is precisely because HF is involved in the reaction process. You know you’re dealing with something out of the ordinary, when the appearance of the “HF leak” warning light on a Merrifield peptide synthesis machine results in immediate and rapid evacuation of the laboratory.
By contrast, prebiotic syntheses involve mild reagents under mild conditions in aqueous solution, with any solid state reactions taking place on the surface of commonly available natural mineral clays such as montmorillonite, not exotic synthetic polymers. NO prebiotic synthesis would call for anhydrous HF or polymerised divinylbenzene, let alone tertiary butoxylcarbonyl groups or chloromethylbenzene.
Once again, I’m tempted to ask just what “source” is being used for the various fake “gotchas” I keep dealing with here? Since I provide proper citations for my sources, I think it’s time that our mythology fanboy ponied up in this regard, and admitted which creationist apologetics websites he’s cribbing his canards from.
