|
On February 23 2012 15:02 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 14:27 Sogo Otika wrote:
If you have no absolute morals, then I could go murder a baby and say that it was relatively OK based on my own perception of what is right and wrong). And there are people that do that. Society also feels free to lock them up, or execute them whichever is socially appropriate for them, since that is relatively ok based on their perception of right and wrong. I think you confuse not believing in moral absolutism with not having morals. A relative moral system based on things like social norms(which change over time), and biological tendencies probably brought about by evolutionary pressures such as inclusive fitness work just as well.
The only decent argument for moral relativism I've ever read is from Harman, however it's a somewhat different moral relativism than what most people traditionally mean when they talk about moral relativism.
If you're interested in defending moral relativism you should really read this, he makes a very convincing argument:
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/dbrink/courses/other pdf articles/Moral Relativism Defended.pdf
|
On February 23 2012 15:12 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 14:38 forgottendreams wrote:On February 23 2012 14:35 Mobius_1 wrote:This conversation is really pointless, because Holophonist is set in his ways and as he takes more and more fundamentalist and far-fetched positions, he will be less open to persuasion until he ends up typing some angry rant in all caps. + Show Spoiler +And his opponents will do more or less the same.
Which is kind of a snapshot of the current American election process.
But hey, at least Michelle Bachmann is no longer in the running. Although these guys are just as demonstrably crazy if the news reports on the debates are anything to go b y. It's not pointless at all, I'm genuinely curious as to the motivations and beliefs of believers because I come from a family of atheists. You can either live in ignorance of each other or ask to see why and how they believe in some things. Thanks for the preachy and bland post though. I'm not sure if that was an open invitation to anybody or not but real quick: The idea that allows me to believe in God is that humans are relatively moronic (and arrogant) in what we think we know. We really don't necessarily know anything about the creation of the universe and whatever the "answer" ends up being, it's going to be something we thought impossible at one point or another. I think it's ridiculous that the people who belittle me for believing in God are a lot of the same people who are becoming more and more open to some off the wall (though probably true!) theories about the univers, including ones involved alternate dimensions/realities. So we can believe in another plane of existence, as long as we don't call it heaven or hell?
With this thought process, the most logical thing to follow from here to just assume "we don't know", i.e agnostic
|
You'd have thought that after the Waterloo that was Dover vs Kitzmiller, that people would have figured out that that crap doesn't fly. The IDers got completely reamed in that one. It's worth reading the actual judgement set out, and it's quite a fun read where the judge details how the IDers got trashed hard in every aspect, including the scientific aspect.
The debate on moral absolutism vs moral relativism doesn't address why Santorum is such a fine specimen of people who should not be given power. It's because the specific system of morality (an absolutist one, for sure) is so horribly backward.
|
On February 23 2012 15:26 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 15:12 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 14:38 forgottendreams wrote:On February 23 2012 14:35 Mobius_1 wrote:This conversation is really pointless, because Holophonist is set in his ways and as he takes more and more fundamentalist and far-fetched positions, he will be less open to persuasion until he ends up typing some angry rant in all caps. + Show Spoiler +And his opponents will do more or less the same.
Which is kind of a snapshot of the current American election process.
But hey, at least Michelle Bachmann is no longer in the running. Although these guys are just as demonstrably crazy if the news reports on the debates are anything to go b y. It's not pointless at all, I'm genuinely curious as to the motivations and beliefs of believers because I come from a family of atheists. You can either live in ignorance of each other or ask to see why and how they believe in some things. Thanks for the preachy and bland post though. I'm not sure if that was an open invitation to anybody or not but real quick: The idea that allows me to believe in God is that humans are relatively moronic (and arrogant) in what we think we know. We really don't necessarily know anything about the creation of the universe and whatever the "answer" ends up being, it's going to be something we thought impossible at one point or another. I think it's ridiculous that the people who belittle me for believing in God are a lot of the same people who are becoming more and more open to some off the wall (though probably true!) theories about the univers, including ones involved alternate dimensions/realities. So we can believe in another plane of existence, as long as we don't call it heaven or hell? With this thought process, the most logical thing to follow from here to just assume "we don't know", i.e agnostic
Well that's why I said that's what allows me to believe in Christianity. To be completely honest, I don't really want to get into a religious debate with about 10 people who fervently disagree with me already.
|
On February 23 2012 14:20 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:32 Jibba wrote:On February 23 2012 11:30 aksfjh wrote:On February 23 2012 11:28 Jibba wrote:
How is Ahmedinejad in any way similar to a dictator? Gingrich is showcasing a fundamental lack of awareness and understanding. Isn't that what this primary is all about? What am I missing here? You can argue about whether Iran is a rational actor or not and we can have a discussion, but the crap they're saying now is flat out wrong and is incredibly reminiscent to the case against Iraq. They're painting Ahmedinejad as Saddam, which is ridiculous. I'm confused. I thought Ahmendinejad was "re-elected" through rigged elections and voter intimidation. I also thought that he advocates wiping Israel completely off the map as a nation. I also thought that Iran's government is backing terrorist groups throughout the middle east. I also thought that their nuclear programs were in violation of the IAEA. Are you saying that none of this is true, and Ahmendinejad is actually a really nice guy and great leader of a peaceful country?
He never said that at all. Jibba was merely pointing out that Ahmadinejad is not a dictator because he isn't in charge of Iran. Iran is ruled by Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad is head of the executive, but is incapable of declaring war, appointing most important offices, and assert control over the military. Ali Khamenei also has a veto on any legislation that comes out of the Iranian parliament.
Gingrich was painting Ahmadinejad as a threat because he holds historically inaccurate and anti-Semitic views, ignoring the fact that it is Ali Khamenei that makes the decisions in Iran.
|
I got up today and saw 227 extra posts on this thread. Excited about what nonsense Sanctorum must have spouted out towards X, I was gladly surprised that a debate had started. And I thoroughly enjoyed the commentary about it ( kudos to you guys! )
Then I was disappointed that 80% of those other posts was just people going Creationism vs Evolution on eachother. ;_;
|
lol yeah.... about that.....
|
On February 23 2012 15:35 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 15:26 biology]major wrote:On February 23 2012 15:12 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 14:38 forgottendreams wrote:On February 23 2012 14:35 Mobius_1 wrote:This conversation is really pointless, because Holophonist is set in his ways and as he takes more and more fundamentalist and far-fetched positions, he will be less open to persuasion until he ends up typing some angry rant in all caps. + Show Spoiler +And his opponents will do more or less the same.
Which is kind of a snapshot of the current American election process.
But hey, at least Michelle Bachmann is no longer in the running. Although these guys are just as demonstrably crazy if the news reports on the debates are anything to go b y. It's not pointless at all, I'm genuinely curious as to the motivations and beliefs of believers because I come from a family of atheists. You can either live in ignorance of each other or ask to see why and how they believe in some things. Thanks for the preachy and bland post though. I'm not sure if that was an open invitation to anybody or not but real quick: The idea that allows me to believe in God is that humans are relatively moronic (and arrogant) in what we think we know. We really don't necessarily know anything about the creation of the universe and whatever the "answer" ends up being, it's going to be something we thought impossible at one point or another. I think it's ridiculous that the people who belittle me for believing in God are a lot of the same people who are becoming more and more open to some off the wall (though probably true!) theories about the univers, including ones involved alternate dimensions/realities. So we can believe in another plane of existence, as long as we don't call it heaven or hell? With this thought process, the most logical thing to follow from here to just assume "we don't know", i.e agnostic Well that's why I said that's what allows me to believe in Christianity. To be completely honest, I don't really want to get into a religious debate with about 10 people who fervently disagree with me already.
Then please don´t and be a good christian. "Forgive them for they know not what they do."
|
On February 23 2012 15:41 Chaosvuistje wrote:
I got up today and saw 227 extra posts on this thread. Excited about what nonsense Sanctorum must have spouted out towards X, I was gladly surprised that a debate had started. And I thoroughly enjoyed the commentary about it ( kudos to you guys! )
Then I was disappointed that 80% of those other posts was just people going Creationism vs Evolution on eachother. ;_;
glad im not the only one
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1338 Posts
On February 23 2012 15:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 15:02 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 23 2012 14:27 Sogo Otika wrote:
If you have no absolute morals, then I could go murder a baby and say that it was relatively OK based on my own perception of what is right and wrong). And there are people that do that. Society also feels free to lock them up, or execute them whichever is socially appropriate for them, since that is relatively ok based on their perception of right and wrong. I think you confuse not believing in moral absolutism with not having morals. A relative moral system based on things like social norms(which change over time), and biological tendencies probably brought about by evolutionary pressures such as inclusive fitness work just as well. The only decent argument for moral relativism I've ever read is from Harman, however it's a somewhat different moral relativism than what most people traditionally mean when they talk about moral relativism. If you're interested in defending moral relativism you should really read this, he makes a very convincing argument: http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/dbrink/courses/other pdf articles/Moral Relativism Defended.pdf
I don't really want to defend moral relativism, i just don't think it equates to lack of morality.
Honestly I find it quite pointless to debate that facet of morality because even absolutism and relativism are relative when it comes to morality.
There are probably certain things which virtually everyone would consider morally right/wrong. Whether it is because they are absolute moral principles or simply that they are relative principles which everyone happens to agree with is an esoteric argument. There are no meaningful differences between the 2 models either in analysis or application, it is merely a matter of modeling the exact same concept from 2 different perspectives. It really comes down to semantics in the end.
Ultimately, for me, morality is just morality. It is a not altogether rational aversion/affinity I have towards doing certain things, some of which may be rooted in logic, and some of which are not.
No amount of discussing, or categorising is going to change my particular idiosynchrosies in it, sometimes I will do things that are against my morality because logic makes a more convincing argument than it, but the feeling of doing something wrong won't magically go away. Sometimes I feel inexplicably good about doing something and I don't understand why. I know it has something to do with inclusive fitness, social conditioning and such, but I accept it's just not perfectly rational and just leave it at, meh i guess thats morality.
|
Think about it for a second, Why would a country as weak as Iran actually use nuclear weapons against Israel/U.S.
It's a ploy by the government to fool the population by giving them an excuse for a war --> then proceed to take control of oil reserves. Standard politics nothing new here.
|
On February 23 2012 15:48 biology]major wrote:
Think about it for a second, Why would a country as weak as Iran actually use nuclear weapons against Israel/U.S.
It's a ploy by the government to fool the population by giving them an excuse for a war --> then proceed to take control of oil reserves. Standard politics nothing new here.
Far cheaper, far less destabilizing, and far far far more efficient methods exist to "take control of oil reserves" in the developing world than an invasion of a country the size of Iran.
|
On February 23 2012 15:40 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 14:20 Joedaddy wrote:On February 23 2012 11:32 Jibba wrote:On February 23 2012 11:30 aksfjh wrote:On February 23 2012 11:28 Jibba wrote:
How is Ahmedinejad in any way similar to a dictator? Gingrich is showcasing a fundamental lack of awareness and understanding. Isn't that what this primary is all about? What am I missing here? You can argue about whether Iran is a rational actor or not and we can have a discussion, but the crap they're saying now is flat out wrong and is incredibly reminiscent to the case against Iraq. They're painting Ahmedinejad as Saddam, which is ridiculous. I'm confused. I thought Ahmendinejad was "re-elected" through rigged elections and voter intimidation. I also thought that he advocates wiping Israel completely off the map as a nation. I also thought that Iran's government is backing terrorist groups throughout the middle east. I also thought that their nuclear programs were in violation of the IAEA. Are you saying that none of this is true, and Ahmendinejad is actually a really nice guy and great leader of a peaceful country? He never said that at all. Jibba was merely pointing out that Ahmadinejad is not a dictator because he isn't in charge of Iran. Iran is ruled by Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad is head of the executive, but is incapable of declaring war, appointing most important offices, and assert control over the military. Ali Khamenei also has a veto on any legislation that comes out of the Iranian parliament. Gingrich was painting Ahmadinejad as a threat because he holds historically inaccurate and anti-Semitic views, ignoring the fact that it is Ali Khamenei that makes the decisions in Iran.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks so much for taking the time to clarify. I'm obviously very uneducated when it comes to Iran and the mid-east in general ^^;
|
On February 23 2012 14:45 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 14:01 Probulous wrote:On February 23 2012 13:53 Holophonist wrote:
Mainly it challenges the science that says complex organs can come about through anything except a specific design laid out by something knowing the end result. Well that premise as a scientific theory has been debunked. For something to considered a theory it has to have internal logic and have some evidence to prove that it exists. In fact in scientific circles for something to go from a hypothesis to a theory requires a very large amount of evidence. That is why evolution is still called a theory. It does not produce the same result every time and is not 100% predictable and so cannot be called a law. So if you are trying to compare the theory of evolution to ID, ID must have a decent level of evidence. It does not. As Eris said, there is a plausible theory for people being abducted by aliens that has more evidence ("eye-witness acounts") than ID. Should that be in a science class? Sorry, just wanted to jump in with some clarification. And luckily it has nothing to do with this religious stuff. Theories don't become Laws or anything. Theories are incredibly complex and explain things. Laws don't explain anything. They just simply state how things are. For instance the Law of Conservation of Energy. It doesn't say why we can't create energy. We have no idea. We just can't. A Theory on the other hand, explains something. Atomic Theory explains why elements act the way they do, and has a great deal of complexity and interest in it. Theories have a lot more to it than Laws. We know that Evolution is true, but it will never be a Law. That's not the way it works
A Hypothesis is a question.
A Conclusion is an acceptance or denial of a hypothesis based on evidence.
A Theory is a conclusion supported by a massive body of independent experimentation and observation.
A Law is an observation. It does not state HOW something works, just that it does based on lots of evidence.
Sorry, just wanted to clarify these things. 
All science begins with a hypothesis. You don't start your way from the end and work back as ID and other dearly-held pseudo-scientific claims are.
|
Canada11583 Posts
...so did anyone watch the debate?
And in that vein- does anyone quite follow the Romney anti-earmark after I was pro-earmark logic? And then going after Santorum for being pro-earmark? Santorum's at least being consistent with action-belief.
I do like Paul's observation of people running on one platform, governing on the opposite set of policies and then running to get rid of the policies you just helped bring in. Of course there is always the pragmatism that comes from governing. But that observation sums up a lot of these policy debates- disown whatever it was you believed before.
|
I watched the latter half of hte debate. It was probably paul's best dsebate. I wasn't terribly... impressed by the performance of the others.
I don't follow Romney's logic on that, nor Santorum's logic on many of his attacks. The same general principle can be applied to all of the above.
|
On February 23 2012 16:57 Froadac wrote:
I don't follow Romney's logic on that, nor Santorum's logic on many of his attacks. The same general principle can be applied to all of the above.
So am I. Imho the whole nomination-process/-debate doesn't come out of the embarassing corner it has put itself in. Come on: Talk 30minutes about contraception!? Some of them should be able to adress more topics!
|
Canada11583 Posts
On February 23 2012 16:57 Froadac wrote:
I watched the latter half of hte debate. It was probably paul's best dsebate..
Yeah, I thought it was one of his better explanations on foreign policy- Iran specifically. Both why current policies are backfiring and as well calling out the warmongering sensationalism. Cold War examples, Fidel Castro, Israel's thoughts on Iran, 45 bases surrounding Iran. It's those specifics that he needs rather than quickly rattling off his standard lines. (Some of his debates I think he's been too familiar with his arguments.)
And as for the whole contraception thing- there's been a couple times CNN has tried to capitalize on recent minor controversies and they always get a negative reaction from the audience. You'd think they'd try to avoid that- unless they consider negative reactions to be good publicity.
Edit.
Oh yeah. And then there was Romney's "I'm going to go answer the question I want." (Common misconceptions question.) It might have been kinda funny the first time, but I find it rather annoying now. Why even have the formality of a question? Just play a couple ad campaigns, say some pithy slogans and go home. Come on. Go off script/flow chart and just answer the stupid question.
|
On February 23 2012 15:12 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 14:38 forgottendreams wrote:On February 23 2012 14:35 Mobius_1 wrote:This conversation is really pointless, because Holophonist is set in his ways and as he takes more and more fundamentalist and far-fetched positions, he will be less open to persuasion until he ends up typing some angry rant in all caps. + Show Spoiler +And his opponents will do more or less the same.
Which is kind of a snapshot of the current American election process.
But hey, at least Michelle Bachmann is no longer in the running. Although these guys are just as demonstrably crazy if the news reports on the debates are anything to go b y. It's not pointless at all, I'm genuinely curious as to the motivations and beliefs of believers because I come from a family of atheists. You can either live in ignorance of each other or ask to see why and how they believe in some things. Thanks for the preachy and bland post though. I'm not sure if that was an open invitation to anybody or not but real quick: The idea that allows me to believe in God is that humans are relatively moronic (and arrogant) in what we think we know. We really don't necessarily know anything about the creation of the universe and whatever the "answer" ends up being, it's going to be something we thought impossible at one point or another. I think it's ridiculous that the people who belittle me for believing in God are a lot of the same people who are becoming more and more open to some off the wall (though probably true!) theories about the univers, including ones involved alternate dimensions/realities. So we can believe in another plane of existence, as long as we don't call it heaven or hell?
Why not believe in ghosts as well?
|
are there youtube videos with the debate? It would interest me what they said about foreign policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
