now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
Thank you Anonymaus1914 and DJS I do appreciate the encouragement.
Rebelfighter I don't need to check my facts because I am correct.
I did not say that ALL christians take those ethical positions. Millions do and they base their intransigent stance on what they think their god commands.
Basing morality on an imaginary "absolute" standard of morality leads to bad ethics.
Objective secular morality is superior to an ethical system based on faith.
now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
Just imagine being in a judicial meeting with cofty. You would be hanged drawn and quartered before even given a chance to open your mouth in defence. - Automat
Are you basing that on the fact that I ask a lot of questions and patiently reason with people I disagree with?
now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
The main concept is that a person can trust God and have just as much morality as anyone else.
This is true but it's the opposite of your main point in your OP.
Without god we have to reason on the consequences of our actions and try to make good decisions.
Christians take ethical positions for ideological decisions regardless of the effects on others. Consider three examples.
1 -Christians object to embryonic stem-cell research on ideological grounds even though it has the potential to relieve a lot of human suffering.
2 - Christians object to loving adult monogamous gay relationships for purely ideological reasons.
3 - Christians object to euthanasia to end the suffering of humans who have no possibility of recovery and who are in insufferable pain.
In these and other examples they appeal to an "absolute" moral duty that exists only in their imagination.
Rational people reason on the consequences of these issues and make objective decisions accordingly.
now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
Looter please ignore Outlaw's childish insults, your topic is more interesting.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
Cofty’s challenge doesn’t answer K99 questions about the specifics of my research and how it supports the existence of a deity. - Kate
I have no idea what you mean. What research?
Even though Soai solved the puzzle of homochirality
Well done on FINALLY admitting Soai solved the puzzle. What else is there to say?
this http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar5003208 is not related to this …
It is TOTALLY related. Soai has continued to research homochirality in the years since his breakthrough in 1995. This paper is a very recent example from 2014. He started with a racemic mixture with an 'ee' of 0.00005%. Following the reaction the 'ee' was over 99.5%.
How can this not be germane to a conversation about the naturalistic cause of homochirality?
The probability of these results without guidance is lower than the probability of these results with guidance - Kate
No it isn't.
I have explained over and over why autocatalysis leads to homochirality and normal catalytic reactions don't.
Serious question - would you like me to explain it one more time?
disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.
yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.
i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.
Humans can't create life can't even create a red blood cell
I can't write a symphony. I don't even begin to understand how it is possible to do something so complex. That doesn't mean it is magic. It just means I am ignorant.
now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
you feel you have found an ideal moral truth in your eyes. There is hardly a difference in that and absolute morality.
They could not be any different. They are exact opposites.
Theists assert that things are right or wrong based on the edicts of an imaginary lawgiver. This capricious appeal to absolute morality has proven to be unfit for purpose. It leads to ethical decisions that are demonstrably harmful but unavoidable.
Rational people ponder what the effects will be on the well-being of conscious creatures and try to make ethical decisions that minimises harm.
Neither of these two ethical systems are the same thing as relative morality. Personal preferences, whims and cultural norms are not a reliable basis for ethics.
Of course in reality christians don't actually get their ethics from some absolute external standard. They mostly reason on consequences just like non-believers but they then go back and superimpose god onto decisions they have already made. God is the ultimate sockpuppet.
now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
You most likely have serious mental health issues and should seek professional help.. - Outlaw
How arrogant.
At last somebody has the desire and insight to critique godless morality and you insult him as insane. Why don't you stick to colouring in goofy cartoons of the governing body and collecting "likes"? Adults are trying to have an interesting conversation.
now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
Not every Christian believes "essential good out there somewhere against which everything must be measured" - looter
How can there be christians who don't believe the god of Jesus is the epitome of goodness?
That is like saying not all triangles have three sides.
to say that all Christians possess objective morality such as those you mentioned isn't true.
I said the opposite of that.
Christians are committed to absolute morality NOT to objective morality.
Absolute morality is nothing more than an excuse to insist that certain things are absolutely right or wrong because "god says so".
But who says that "god says so"? In the OT god commanded that Joshua and his army commit infanticide. Therefore you are compelled to agree that under some circumstances murdering babies is morally good.
Rational people are committed to objective morality. That means that good and bad are assessed against the consequences for the well-being of conscious creatures. So there are real moral truths, however there is no absolute moral standard that we are trying to discover - that is a myth for the comfort of infants.
disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.
yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.
i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.
Shadow, great first post.
It's a dismal OP that offers not a single word of evidence. His argument is with the dictionary.
Still waiting on Evolution Hole #2
