115 replies to this topic

[vbnautilus]

Dread Aidan, on Wednesday, October 5th, 2011, 4:03 PM, said:

Was it? I thought it was created for the glory of God and we're supposed to worship him for it.

see below

Quote

Is that what the discussion was about before I jumped in? Did the idea that the sun revolved around the earth come from the church?

It was an analogy. But yes, it was the view endorsed by the church because if fit with their anthropocentric world view. And, as my favorite poster shows, some religious people have not yet given up on the idea.

Quote

I'm going a little off the board here, but does the Bible say that God has taken our side against all other sides? (It probably does say something like that; this is totally going to backfire.)

26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.And then, of course, not only did he favor humans, but specific humans, i.e. the Jews.

[vbnautilus]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, October 5th, 2011, 4:12 PM, said:

Silly Sam.He doesn't understand the most basic level of understanding about Christianity. We actually fall all over ourselves telling each other how unworthy we are to be chosen by God. And our faith in our knowledge of the Universe is completely separate from our own knowledge, it is only based on what God has said is true.I'm sure Sam though went out and discovered electricity, made a silicon chip, invented the internet and gave English language meaning in order to claim that he doesn't lean on the shoulders of others like we do. The difference is that we choose the shoulders of the Creator of the Universe, not Algore.

The difference is that Sam and I admit that we don't have certainty about the origins of the universe, whereas you do not admit this.

[timwakefield]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, October 5th, 2011, 7:12 PM, said:

And our faith in our knowledge of the Universe is completely separate from our own knowledge, it is only based on what God has said is true.

Consider: every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you have for being a Christian. And yet you do not find their reasons compelling. The Koran repeatedly declares that it is the perfect word of the creator of the universe. Muslims believe this as fully as you believe the Bible's account of itself. There is a vast literature describing the life of Muhammad that, from the point of view of Islam, proves that he was the most recent Prophet of God. Muhammad also assured his followers that Jesus was not divine (Koran 5:71-75; 19:30-38) and that anyone who believes otherwise will spend eternity in hell. Muslims are certain that Muhammad's opinion on this subject, as on all others, is infallible. Why don't you lose any sleep over whether to convert to Islam? Can you prove that Allah is not the one, true God? Can you prove that the archangel Gabriel did not visit Muhammad in his cave? Of course not. But you need not prove any of these things to reject the beliefs of Muslims as absurd. The burden is upon them to prove that their beliefs about God and Muhammad are valid. They have not done this. They cannot do this. Muslims are simply not making claims about reality that can be corroborated. This is perfectly apparent to anyone who has not anesthetized himself with the dogma of Islam. The truth is, you know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims. Isn't it obvious that Muslims are fooling themselves? Isn't it obvious that anyone who thinks that the Koran is the perfect word of the creator of the universe has not read the book critically? Isn't it obvious that the doctrine of Islam represents a near perfect barrier to honest inquiry? Yes, these things are obvious. Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions. - Sam Harris, from "Letter to a Christian Nation"

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, October 5th, 2011, 7:12 PM, said:

I'm sure Sam though went out and discovered electricity, made a silicon chip, invented the internet and gave English language meaning in order to claim that he doesn't lean on the shoulders of others like we do. The difference is that we choose the shoulders of the Creator of the Universe, not Algore.

Where did he claim that?

[speedz99]

I like Tim's last quote. It always kills me that any religious person wouldn't understand how someone could be an atheist.

Dread Aidan, on Wednesday, October 5th, 2011, 12:48 PM, said:

I don't think they would deny that it's possible. But still, isn't "there is something out there greater than me (God)" less arrogant than "there might be something out there greater than me?"

No, because it's pretty arrogant to assume knowledge of such a thing...maybe "arrogant" is the wrong word, but it's certainly not humble to claim to know, for example, the timeline of god's creation of the universe. When I say "might", it's only because it hasn't been shown to be the case, not because I think it's likely that we're the apex of evolution.

Dread Aidan, on Wednesday, October 5th, 2011, 12:48 PM, said:

The point still stands.

Of course, I'm just giving my personal reasoning.

Dread Aidan, on Wednesday, October 5th, 2011, 12:48 PM, said:

Isn't this still a tally-mark for my side?

Yes, it is. It's just my point when discussing the fact that it's a lot more complicated than "humans are superior and therefore more important than other animals". It's easily argued that my protecting a human over an ant is no different from a high school kid siding with kids from his own school (who he barely knows) in a fight against kids from the rival school. Family, friends, neighbors, countrymen, species, planet, etc...it's probably an evolutionary mechanism to protect our own. That's not the same as "humans are 'greater' than other species".

Dread Aidan, on Wednesday, October 5th, 2011, 12:48 PM, said:

I just feel like believing there is a higher power is kind of the opposite of arrogance. I will concede that believing you are made in that higher power's image seems to be right in arrogance's alley.

I'm fine with the fact that believing there is a higher power is not arrogant. Believing in one specific version of that higher power and thinking everyone else's version is wrong absolutely is arrogant.

[timwakefield]

speedz99, on Wednesday, October 5th, 2011, 10:20 PM, said:

I like Tim's last quote. It always kills me that any religious person wouldn't understand how someone could be an atheist.

EDIT: link removed.

[speedz99]

Thanks, but I'm not really interested in reading the whole thing. As the choir, I'm not too interested in being preached to. Honestly, getting into it with BG or JJ about this stuff is much more stimulating. I assume it's just 30 pages of telling me what I already believe to be true, just more eloquently than I could put it.Edit: Ok, fine, I'm just lazy. I'm sure it's a good read.

[Dread Aidan]

speedz99, on Wednesday, October 5th, 2011, 7:20 PM, said:

It's easily argued that my protecting a human over an ant is no different from a high school kid siding with kids from his own school (who he barely knows) in a fight against kids from the rival school.

Did you know that the combined weight of all the ants in the world is greater than the combined weight of all humans in the world?

[speedz99]

Dread Aidan, on Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 7:02 AM, said:

Did you know that the combined weight of all the ants in the world is greater than the combined weight of all humans in the world?

Yes.

[SuitedAces21]

speedz99, on Wednesday, October 5th, 2011, 9:20 PM, said:

It's easily argued that my protecting a human over an ant is no different from a high school kid siding with kids from his own school (who he barely knows) in a fight against kids from the rival school.

ewww, i dont know about this. i have a hard time understanding how you can view ants and humans on the same scale.

[Tactical Bear]

Dread Aidan, on Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 11:02 AM, said:

Did you know that the combined weight of all the ants in the world is greater than the combined weight of all humans in the world?

SuitedAces21, on Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 12:38 PM, said:

ewww, i dont know about this. i have a hard time understanding how you can view ants and humans on the same scale.

Ba dum ching!

[speedz99]

SuitedAces21, on Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 8:38 AM, said:

ewww, i dont know about this. i have a hard time understanding how you can view ants and humans on the same scale.

Why do I have more inherant value than an ant? You can't say "intelligence" unless you're willing to say you'd save a monkey over a severely mentally handicapped human. But I'm willing to listen if you've got something beyond that.Do I really think you're equal to an ant? No. But it's pretty damn hard to pin down why when you really dig into it. There are many situations in which an animal's well being should be viewed as more important than a human's, but isn't. And we're using ants, but if you want to be more realistic we could talk about elephants or dolphins...animals that have been shown to be really intelligent, and in many cases any one of them is more important than most humans when looked at objectively in terms of environmental impact, but we still think of ourselves as "greater" than them, to use DA's term.

[Dread Aidan]

speedz99, on Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 10:34 AM, said:

..."greater" than them, to use DA's term.

[vbnautilus]

speedz99, on Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 10:34 AM, said:

Why do I have more inherant value than an ant? You can't say "intelligence" unless you're willing to say you'd save a monkey over a severely mentally handicapped human. But I'm willing to listen if you've got something beyond that.Do I really think you're equal to an ant? No. But it's pretty damn hard to pin down why when you really dig into it. There are many situations in which an animal's well being should be viewed as more important than a human's, but isn't. And we're using ants, but if you want to be more realistic we could talk about elephants or dolphins...animals that have been shown to be really intelligent, and in many cases any one of them is more important than most humans when looked at objectively in terms of environmental impact, but we still think of ourselves as "greater" than them, to use DA's term.

It's very clear why we afford empathy to certain animals and not to others, and it has to do with the degree to which we ascribe mental states to them. We view ants as machines, not as creatures with a mental life that suffer. However, I don't think that has anything to do with their value to nature.

[speedz99]

vbnautilus, on Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 10:35 AM, said:

It's very clear why we afford empathy to certain animals and not to others, and it has to do with the degree to which we ascribe mental states to them. We view ants as machines, not as creatures with a mental life that suffer.

I know, and my point to SA21 is that our choice of humans over other animals cannot be completely attributed to that. Some animals have higher mental states than some humans. So you can take it on a case by case basis, but that's why it's hard to pin down the general feeling that humans are better than anything else.

[Tactical Bear]

speedz99, on Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 1:34 PM, said:

Why do I have more inherant value than an ant? You can't say "intelligence" unless you're willing to say you'd save a monkey over a severely mentally handicapped human. But I'm willing to listen if you've got something beyond that.

A species' preference for itself above all others is not an entirely rational process, but that doesn't mean it's without merit or value.Also, I probably save the retarded kid because his death will likely cause more pain for for his family than the monkey's. And because I identify with him.

[speedz99]

Tactical Bear, on Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 11:57 AM, said:

A species' preference for itself above all others is not an entirely rational process, but that doesn't mean it's without merit or value.

Agreed.

Tactical Bear, on Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 11:57 AM, said:

Also, I probably save the retarded kid because his death will likely cause more pain for for his family than the monkey's.

Yeah, but only upon further review. The split second decision most likely doesn't include thoughts of the kid's family. Then again, it probably doesn't consider the relative intelligence issue either.

[Tactical Bear]

speedz99, on Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 4:35 PM, said:

Agreed. Yeah, but only upon further review. The split second decision most likely doesn't include thoughts of the kid's family. Then again, it probably doesn't consider the relative intelligence issue either.

Right, but if it wasn't a split-second decision, I could still justify it in a utilitarian sense without ever talking about intelligence

[speedz99]

Tactical Bear, on Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 12:46 PM, said:

Right, but if it wasn't a split-second decision, I could still justify it in a utilitarian sense without ever talking about intelligence

His family shunned him. He has no friends and his existence is a financial drain on society. He's basically stuck with the intelligence of a one year old. He can't speak, can only understand a few words, etc. The monkey is noticably more intelligent than him. It is part of a family and is high up in the heirarchy. His species is endangered....ok, well now I really might save the monkey.

[vbnautilus]

speedz99, on Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 1:35 PM, said:

Yeah, but only upon further review. The split second decision most likely doesn't include thoughts of the kid's family.

That cause-suffering-aversion is built-in to the empathy process: just because you don't need to do a conscious weighting of the outcomes every time you make a decision, that doesn't mean the suffering caused to the kid and his family is not factored into your decision.

[Balloon guy]

Cliffs:BG: Atheist have something wrong with their brains, here's science and stuff.Atheists: Wait, if you take this one sentence, it makes it look like we aren't faulty thinkers.BG: UmAtheist: Yes in fact we are geniuses, smarter than everyone as proven by a chart that admits that 1 in 3 scientist believe in God.BG: umAtheist: In fact to show how smart we are, we are going to argue that ants and humans are equal.Other Atheist: But not retarded kids and monkeys right?Atheist: Oh no, they are the same too, but let's discuss which one we can kill.Other atheist: UmAtheist: Of course we wouldn't actually kill a retarded ant, we are just saying they are all the same as us, in fact we are less than an ant, a retard and a monkey.BG: Looks like the original point has been proven. Next argument?