Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[stevil]

[quote name='CephaDrigan' timestamp='1307321725' post='2250284']
The AB+ at least matches other Eucharistic miracles as well as the Shroud of Torin. But even if we did get a DNA test for him, I doubt that it would show anything all that remarkable (other than that his blood hasn't dried up for 11 centuries), because it was his soul that allowed him to perform miracles, not his body. What[i] does[/i] it make you think though?, because you seem to be showing some curiosity.
[/quote]
Honestly, it is interesting.
I would think many Catholics would want DNA tests done. It would show at the very least that Eurochrist miracles occuring many many years apart are either from the same person or different.

It certainly is fascinated that it hasn't rotted or dried. Have they attempted to dry it by exposing for long period to dry air? or rot it by introducing bacteria? I would be interested to know more details

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307275519' post='2250121']
[b]I'm not sure that no god exists[/b], I never said that, I just reject the claims of people who say they have a personal relationship with god even though I can't prove that they don't. There are an infinite number of possible gods, including those that no human has ever thought of, or is even capable of thinking of.

I find all religious belief to be fascinating, especially how beliefs work and why people have them, and there are some cool people on this forum.
[/quote]

Then there is chance for you yet Sister. Though it may mean little to nothing to you. I shall pray for you because I do believe you are certainly on the path to finding God. Because you do believe in some form of Objective Morality, and you do believe in Objective truth, even though at first you claimed you did not. You may yet still think that but you're statements to me prove otherwise.

God Bless!

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307324438' post='2250292']
Then there is chance for you yet Sister. Though it may mean little to nothing to you. I shall pray for you because I do believe you are certainly on the path to finding God. Because you do believe in some form of Objective Morality, and you do believe in Objective truth, even though at first you claimed you did not. You may yet still think that but you're statements to me prove otherwise.

God Bless!
[/quote]

Gee...I'm flattered, I guess?

You needn't do that, I'm just here because I want to know why god is as obvious to people as 1+1=2 is to me.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307208275' post='2249906']
Because it's much more the potential for developed human life (person) underway than an actual person. The best argument for this is that identical twins come from the same conception. In that case, the potential becomes more than one person. [/quote]

You do not "become" a human being. A man and a woman cannot "make" anything other than a human being.

[quote] and the intent to cause harm (to use the term loosely) is something I consider when evaluating whether I think something is moral or not. Without god, miscarriages are just a natural occurrence, and nature is without morality, since morality is in part a product of societal order. [/quote]

Perhaps, when speculating over God, you should keep in mind that compared to God* you are a finite creature, one who has been created by an infinite Being. Your definitions of "morality" and "immorality" are just that, yours - one must recognize that it is impossible to put one's self on God's level. Therefore God sent His Son down to [i]our[/i] level so that we may better understand Him. God has entered into our lives in an incredibly intimate way.

I know that I am about to side-track us, but: I am really, really curious to hear your opinion on Jesus Christ.

*I recognize that you have no belief in God, but I am sure in your speculations there are a lot of "ifs", such as "if God exists..." or "if God did this..." etc.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307212927' post='2249931']
What I'm saying that once you accept that there is a mind behind the creation of the universe it raises all sort of moral questions for natural mechanisms such as whether there is the intent to cause something or not. For one, how do you even know what god intended to cause and what he didn't? If he didn't cause it, then why didn't he intervene to prevent harm, being all powerful? Why [i]let[/i] bad things happen?

The most common counter arguments I've come across to solve this cognitive dissonance is that suffering is necessary to build character or get you to see things a certain way. I don't know. I just think that adding god to the picture complicates things and that's just one of the reasons why I don't believe. God doesn't provide any answers and is unnecessary for them.
[/quote]

When God created man, he gave us free will. God does not want to force anyone to love Him; that is not true, pure love. Human beings have a choice. Whether you personally believe it or not, you are using the free will God gave you right now. It hurts God tremendously when His children reject Him, but He would rather experience that pain than stand for His children to be forced to do something against their will. You can reject God, my friend, but He believes in you and will never reject you. Whatever choice you make, in the end He will honor that choice.

Thus from the beginning, man had the choice to accept or reject God. When God was rejected, in other words when Adam and Eve disobeyed Him and succumbed to pride, assuming themselves on the same level as God, sin entered the world and spread its poison across the globe. Mankind is responsible for bringing bad things into this world.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1307335345' post='2250348']You do not "become" a human being. A man and a woman cannot "make" anything other than a human being. [/quote]

It's a bit difficult to explain, but at the early stage, it's a bunch of cells with human DNA well on it's way to becoming something recognisably human. I think Sam Harris put it into context better than I could:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUwnMX8ht3U[/media]


[quote]Perhaps, when speculating over God, you should keep in mind that compared to God* you are a finite creature, one who has been created by an infinite Being. Your definitions of "morality" and "immorality" are just that, yours - one must recognize that it is impossible to put one's self on God's level. Therefore God sent His Son down to [i]our[/i] level so that we may better understand Him. God has entered into our lives in an incredibly intimate way.[/quote]

Yes, that is one thing I keep in mind, and one more reason why I reject claims of personal relationships with him, especially since there's nothing to suggest that people can go beyond their experiences. It's unreasonable to think that a mind of finite wisdom could even begin to understand one of infinite wisdom, if it exists, and I extend that to all churches and religious authorities.

But it's true, I do speculate a lot, though I'm fully aware that they're just speculations.

The whole morality point is that it seems to me that human morality is more real than god's, or that god is not as preoccupied with people. But I say this because I can't imagine a world where there would be a divine morality guiding us.

[quote]I know that I am about to side-track us, but: I am really, really curious to hear your opinion on Jesus Christ. [/quote]

Opinion on what exactly? What I think of his character?

[quote]*I recognize that you have no belief in God, but I am sure in your speculations there are a lot of "ifs", such as "if God exists..." or "if God did this..." etc.

When God created man, he gave us free will. God does not want to force anyone to love Him; that is not true, pure love. Human beings have a choice. Whether you personally believe it or not, you are using the free will God gave you right now. It hurts God tremendously when His children reject Him, but He would rather experience that pain than stand for His children to be forced to do something against their will. You can reject God, my friend, but He believes in you and will never reject you. Whatever choice you make, in the end He will honor that choice.

Thus from the beginning, man had the choice to accept or reject God. When God was rejected, in other words when Adam and Eve disobeyed Him and succumbed to pride, assuming themselves on the same level as God, sin entered the world and spread its poison across the globe. Mankind is responsible for bringing bad things into this world.
[/quote]

I'm just curious, do you believe that the universe is deterministic?

Edited June 6, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307336524' post='2250353']
It's a bit difficult to explain, but at the early stage, it's a bunch of cells with human DNA well on it's way to becoming something recognisably human. I think Sam Harris put it into context better than I could:
[/quote]

What is "recognizably human"? Who gets to determine that? And how do you avoid [b]bigotry[/b]?


[b]The Liberty of Men[/b]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." 1

This is the founding principle of our Nation. The words promise Liberty for all men, but
how you interpret, Men, and Liberty changes their respected meanings.
How you interpret those words will likely effect how you answer the following questions.

What is truth? Do you hear it when it is spoken? Does it exist? Is it objective, or subjective?

What is Man? The first question of the first day in this class, if I am not mistaken.
So, What is Man, or rather who is man and who is not.
Because who is and who is not a person determines
who has Liberty and who is denied Liberty.

What is the origin of Liberty? Where do our rights come from?
Are rights given by the Law, does Government give the people Liberty?

Repeatedly through out time, again and again, man has denied the humanity and personhood of his fellow man.
Because Man has continually denied the truth. The Truth that no matter what race, sex, or creed people maybe,
everyone is human, everyone has personhood. Everyone has rights and liberty.

Yet men have always broke this truth with the use of the Law, the Government.
If rights are given by Government, rights can be taken away by Government.
These types of laws have unjustly 'justified' the oppression of women
and even greater evils such as the enslavement of the African, and the Jewish Holocaust.

These laws where based on limited Personhood. Which is based upon cognitive ability, physical form, and dependence.
Non-person persons, or less than human, humans, have always had their cognitive ability attacked,
their intelligence or their apparent lack thereof.
Their physical form such as skin color, black or white or sex, man or woman.

But that type of injustice is a thing of the past, right? In America, while by no means prefect, She has learned
something from the oppression of women, the enslavement of blacks, and the lessons of the Holocaust. Right?

Yet, what if I told you that 1,784 blacks, and 2,000 women where murdered today, completely within the Law? 2
Would you quickly demand the Government to carry out justice for the slain?

How you would feel, and your actions would be determined on your acceptance or denial of the truth,
who you classify as human, and who you deny personhood too. As well as where you believe Liberty comes from.

Most if not All Americans today will say they believe Liberty is for everyone, no matter what.

And most would be quite upset to hear that 1,784 blacks, and 2,000 women where brutally murdered every day in America.
Yet when it is revealed that those poor souls are unborn babies, suddenly Liberty is not for all,
and can be denied to the unwanted, the forgotten, the nonperson person.

Despite claims to the contrary, science has irrefutably proven that life,
human life begins at conception. At that moment a unique being exist,
one with it's own unique genetic structure, and therefor is a member of the Homo sapiens species. 3

So when it comes to the unborn child, the question is not if she is human.
But if a human can be a nonperson?
Clearly the answer is no, all humans are persons.


Yet, personhood is denied to the unborn just as slaves, and the Jewish people where legally denied personhood.
A law decreed that a group of unwanted human beings were legally nonpersons, and could be enslaved or put to death.

Laws that allow for the murder of children is based on the same reasoning of the past.
That these people are not persons, because they lack a certain cognitive ability,
or lack an approved physical form, and dependence.

If a unborn child is not human based on the lack of cognitive ability, what of the mentally handicap?
Are they less than human because of their handicap? And does it justify killing them?
What of burn victims, and persons missing both their arms and legs?
Are they also less than human because they lack "human form"? And does that justify killing them?

A child from when she is born from her mothers womb until she has at lest reached adolescence,
is completely dependent on her parents.
Does that dependence justify killing her?

No, of course not, but for some reason it justifies the killing of the unborn.

Which side will ultimately win the day is not yet known. Yet the choice is clear to those that wish to see the truth.
America and the world must decide if it wants to live
the dream of Maraget Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood that dream that

'Colored people are human weeds and they are to be exterminated.' 4

and

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." 5


I pray that we live the Dream of Liberty which is found in the preamble of the Declaration,
and was the Dream of Martian Luther King that dream that..

"We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped
of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity"

And

"When we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring
from every village and every hamlet, from every
state and every city.

We will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children,
black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics,
will be able to join hands and sing the words

"Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" 7


----------------------

1. The Declaration of Independence

2. Statistics provided by the Guttmacher Institute Website: Jeff J. Koloze, Abortion in the African-American Community, Sociological Data and Literary Examples

3. E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.: Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1: O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8: Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981: Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.: David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 20

4. Killer Angel: George Grant: Reformer Press: page 65: Woman's Body, Woman's Right: p 332: see also Killer Angel: p 73

5. The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

6. Martin Luther King Jr, I Have a Dream Speech

Edited June 6, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307337407' post='2250356']
What is "recognizably human"? Who gets to determine that? And how do you avoid [b]bigotry[/b]?


[b]The Liberty of Men[/b]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." 1

This is the founding principle of our Nation. The words promise Liberty for all men, but
how you interpret, Men, and Liberty changes their respected meanings.
How you interpret those words will likely effect how you answer the following questions.

What is truth? Do you hear it when it is spoken? Does it exist? Is it objective, or subjective?

What is Man? The first question of the first day in this class, if I am not mistaken.
So, What is Man, or rather who is man and who is not.
Because who is and who is not a person determines
who has Liberty and who is denied Liberty.

What is the origin of Liberty? Where do our rights come from?
Are rights given by the Law, does Government give the people Liberty?

Repeatedly through out time, again and again, man has denied the humanity and personhood of his fellow man.
Because Man has continually denied the truth. The Truth that no matter what race, sex, or creed people maybe,
everyone is human, everyone has personhood. Everyone has rights and liberty.

Yet men have always broke this truth with the use of the Law, the Government.
If rights are given by Government, rights can be taken away by Government.
These types of laws have unjustly 'justified' the oppression of women
and even greater evils such as the enslavement of the African, and the Jewish Holocaust.

These laws where based on limited Personhood. Which is based upon cognitive ability, physical form, and dependence.
Non-person persons, or less than human, humans, have always had their cognitive ability attacked,
their intelligence or their apparent lack thereof.
Their physical form such as skin color, black or white or sex, man or woman.

But that type of injustice is a thing of the past, right? In America, while by no means prefect, She has learned
something from the oppression of women, the enslavement of blacks, and the lessons of the Holocaust. Right?

Yet, what if I told you that 1,784 blacks, and 2,000 women where murdered today, completely within the Law? 2
Would you quickly demand the Government to carry out justice for the slain?

How you would feel, and your actions would be determined on your acceptance or denial of the truth,
who you classify as human, and who you deny personhood too. As well as where you believe Liberty comes from.

Most if not All Americans today will say they believe Liberty is for everyone, no matter what.

And most would be quite upset to hear that 1,784 blacks, and 2,000 women where brutally murdered every day in America.
Yet when it is revealed that those poor souls are unborn babies, suddenly Liberty is not for all,
and can be denied to the unwanted, the forgotten, the nonperson person.

Despite claims to the contrary, science has irrefutably proven that life,
human life begins at conception. At that moment a unique being exist,
one with it's own unique genetic structure, and therefor is a member of the Homo sapiens species. 3

So when it comes to the unborn child, the question is not if she is human.
But if a human can be a nonperson?
Clearly the answer is no, all humans are persons.


Yet, personhood is denied to the unborn just as slaves, and the Jewish people where legally denied personhood.
A law decreed that a group of unwanted human beings were legally nonpersons, and could be enslaved or put to death.

Laws that allow for the murder of children is based on the same reasoning of the past.
That these people are not persons, because they lack a certain cognitive ability,
or lack an approved physical form, and dependence.

If a unborn child is not human based on the lack of cognitive ability, what of the mentally handicap?
Are they less than human because of their handicap? And does it justify killing them?
What of burn victims, and persons missing both their arms and legs?
Are they also less than human because they lack "human form"? And does that justify killing them?

A child from when she is born from her mothers womb until she has at lest reached adolescence,
is completely dependent on her parents.
Does that dependence justify killing her?

No, of course not, but for some reason it justifies the killing of the unborn.

Which side will ultimately win the day is not yet known. Yet the choice is clear to those that wish to see the truth.
America and the world must decide if it wants to live
the dream of Maraget Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood that dream that

'Colored people are human weeds and they are to be exterminated.' 4

and

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." 5


I pray that we live the Dream of Liberty which is found in the preamble of the Declaration,
and was the Dream of Martian Luther King that dream that..

"We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped
of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity"

And

"When we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring
from every village and every hamlet, from every
state and every city.

We will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children,
black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics,
will be able to join hands and sing the words

"Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" 7


----------------------

1. The Declaration of Independence

2. Statistics provided by the Guttmacher Institute Website: Jeff J. Koloze, Abortion in the African-American Community, Sociological Data and Literary Examples

3. E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.: Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1: O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8: Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981: Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.: David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 20

4. Killer Angel: George Grant: Reformer Press: page 65: Woman's Body, Woman's Right: p 332: see also Killer Angel: p 73

5. The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

6. Martin Luther King Jr, I Have a Dream Speech
[/quote]

Depends on human in what form. Such as in the examples you posted above:

Either when the embryo starts to look like a human (head, eyes, two arms and two legs). I think that when it reaches this stage then abortion is not justified however.

Not so much about cognitive ability but rather a formed nervous system. We would have to assume that it is fully capable of feeling pain and so there are moral implications when defined "harm" as something that causes pain.

IMO life at conception is life, but it's not a person because there it might even split to become two separate humans within the course of a few days. Before those days there's no reason to assume that it's specifically one person. It would be a bunch of cells with human DNA in the earliest stage of developmental process. There's no reason to assume that these cells would be conscious or feel pain.

If compared to a biological analogy, stem cells would be even less than a protozoa. [b]At that stage[/b], the human DNA it has makes it no more biologically special than very simple organisms. I'm speaking in biological terms, not legal.

Biologically, the example of removing person hood from blacks, mentally handicapped etc. with stem cells is not a fair comparison.

Edited June 6, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

===

Edited June 6, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307338996' post='2250363']
Depends on human in what form. Such as in the examples you posted above:

Either when the embryo starts to look like a human (head, eyes, two arms and two legs). I think that when it reaches this stage then abortion is not justified however.

Not so much about cognitive ability but rather a formed nervous system. We would have to assume that it is fully capable of feeling pain and so there are moral implications when defined "harm" as something that causes pain.

IMO life at conception is life, but it's not a person because there it might even split to become two separate humans within the course of a few days. Before those days there's no reason to assume that it's specifically one person. It would be a bunch of cells with human DNA in the earliest stage of developmental process. There's no reason to assume that these cells would be conscious or feel pain.

If compared to a biological analogy, stem cells would be even less than a protozoa. [b]At that stage[/b], the human DNA it has makes it no more biologically special than very simple organisms. I'm speaking in biological terms, not legal.

Biologically, the example of removing person hood from blacks, mentally handicapped etc. with stem cells is not a fair comparison.
[/quote]

I'll be competely straight with you. If you deny the humanity/personhood of the unborn it's out right bigotry. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Edited June 6, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307340938' post='2250374']
I'll be competely straight with you. If you deny the humanity of the unborn it's out right bigotry. You should be ashamed of yourself.
[/quote]

Deny what exactly? Like I mentioned to HisChildForever there are other philosophical implications, but those lie in the future. I just can't, in my mind, see a collection of cells in one stage in a given time frame to trump the needs of people who think, feel and suffer. Call it my opinion and call it a day.

What are your views on embrionic cells that would otherwise be discarded of, such as the excesses for in vitro fertilization? In your view would those be okay if the parents consented?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307341547' post='2250377']
Deny what exactly? Like I mentioned to HisChildForever there are other philosophical implications, but those lie in the future. I just can't, in my mind, see a collection of cells in one stage in a given time frame to trump the needs of people who think, feel and suffer. Call it my opinion and call it a day. [/quote]


The personhood of your fellow brothers and sisters you label as just a collection of cells. This is not an opinion it is selfish bigotry and ignorance. Like poor souls of the past you fall for the same old gimmicks. Because you cannot see the feelings, the intelligence, (or because they have an lack of intelligence) and the suffering of a group of people you deny them personhood.

Its the same old game played a thousand times by wicked men of the past. It just has a different name. Each group of persons has had their turn sometimes more than once, and now it is the unborn's turn. The most innocent and defenseless of all peoples. They are person's you cannot soundly and respectful deny this, in fact you are much better than this, I believe in your ability to be more. You do not need to fall into the same errors of the past and deny personhood to your fellow brothers and sisters. Even if you are to deny God do not deny your fellow man, their all you have left.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307341547' post='2250377']What are your views on embrionic cells that would otherwise be discarded of, such as the excesses for in vitro fertilization?
[/quote]

What is your view on the Nazi's using left over skin to make lamp shades?


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307341547' post='2250377']In your view would those be okay if the parents consented?[/quote]

In your view would it be ok for parents to give their consent to sell their children into slavery?

Edited June 6, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307345329' post='2250381']
The personhood of your fellow brothers and sisters you label as just a collection of cells. This is not an opinion it is selfish bigotry and ignorance. Like poor souls of the past you fall for the same old gimmicks. Because you cannot see the feelings, the intelligence, (or because they have an lack of intelligence) and the suffering of a group of people you deny them personhood.

Its the same old game played a thousand times by wicked men of the past. It just has a different name. Each group of persons has had their turn sometimes more than once, and now it is the unborn's turn. The most innocent and defenseless of all peoples. They are person's you cannot soundly and respectful deny this, in fact you are much better than this, I believe in your ability to be more. You do not need to fall into the same errors of the past and deny personhood to your fellow brothers and sisters. Even if you are to deny God do not deny your fellow man, their all you have left.[/quote]

The way I see it is fundamentally different, but don't generalise, it's not like I'm saying that women should donate their eggs in order to satisfy a demand for scientific research. I'm looking at it from the woman's point of view, and the right that people have to donate their cells, which could be joined to form an embryo. In the case of in vitro fertilization, in which more conceptions are made than necessary, those embryonic cells would be discarded of and never implanted in a womb to grow and develop into a person. So what do you say is Right" in this case, forcibly implant those into a womb so that they can develop?

What becomes a baby is a group of cells in the right conditions. Take those conditions away and all you have is a group of cells stuck in that state, that will not develop into something that either looks more like a human or thinks like one. I know that this line of thinking might seem completely alien to you.

I guess another solution to one of the main the problems that stem cells research would try to remedy is transhumanism. Would that be better or worse in your opinion?


[quote]What is your view on the Nazi's using left over skin to make lamp shades? [/quote]

I think that's just sick in an of itself, but in that case there weren't other people who would really benefit from the leftovers of living, thinking, feeling people.

[quote]In your view would it be ok for parents to give their consent to sell their children into slavery?[/quote]

No, because those would already be persons and even if parents who are responsible for them wanted to sell them into slavery they couldn't.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307081704' post='2249409']
I looked up the non aggression principle, and do subscribe to the idea, but the main problem with it is, as Amppax pointed out, what a good one definition of 'harm' is, and doesn't make it any easier to explain to others. But the libertarian idea of personal freedom is one that I can strongly relate to.
[/quote]

I thought you would. It seems up your alley. I also subscribe to it.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
Which brings me to the example of condom use for people with HIV, just so you see how I view these things, even if you don't agree:

Firstly, I think it's important to define what the "evil" would be in

For two people who do not have children or any other dependent third party to consider, it's up to them. I don't see it as immoral if both choose out of their free will, provided that both know the potential consequences. A case in which one partner hides the fact that he or she is HIV positive is immoral IMO, whether they use condoms or not.

As for a couple with children or any other dependent third party, at first I was tempted to say that they shouldn't risk it even with condoms. But since I value informed personal freedom I spent a bit more time to reconsider. The thing is, people put themselves in knowingly risky situations all the time. What are the odds of people with dependents getting into fatal car accidents for instance? People are aware of risks and factors that are beyond their control when they get in the car...
Or what about parents who have risky jobs such as policemen or people serving in the military? Should anyone volunteer to put themselves in those situations?
[/quote]

That's a reasonable answer. I think it makes a difference how the person is informed; i.e. if the person is informed prior to being emotionally invested in the other person, or in 'the heat of the moment' but I'm guessing you would agree with that.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
In the context in which there are dependents, what would be the difference between those two cases of people who choose to put themselves in a knowingly risky situation?

I think at best one could hope that they would act responsibly

It seems that organisations such as the FDA and CDC are claiming that the HIV virus does not pass through latex condoms, only older "natural" ones such as lambskin, and they take the scientific approach to this, which I feel is way more credible. The Church should restrict itself to matters within its own domain, not spread misinformation to maintain a view that in the end is [i]not[/i] helping the decrease of HIV victims and because of this [i]is[/i] causing disastrous consequences in Africa. Some of the numbers on percentages of the population infected are just almost unbelievable. This is a big issue, and I doubt that places such as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention would lie or that it's all pro-condom unsubstantiated propaganda.
[/quote]

Well, the Church *does* restrict itself to moral issues, but there are times where someone thinks that something is a moral issue, but it really isn't. Case in point: heliocentricity. Why would it make a lick of difference to a person's morality if God made x spin around y or y spin around x? *shrugs*

The reason that this conversation is important to morality is that it deals with things that change how people live for the rest of their lives. Even 'casual relationships' have potentially lifelong consequences for one or both individuals. (Or for the people that are created out of that relationship!) One of the principles of Christianity is that you must treat all other people with respect, thus it's not acceptable to only look at the risks from your own perspective, but also how it will change the other person.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
Here's a link to an article with references : [url="http://www.condoms4life.org/facts/CondomsAndAIDS.htm"]http://www.condoms4l...domsAndAIDS.htm[/url]

Fortunately the another page in the site even mentions people within the Catholic Church that are trying to cause change in regards to whether condoms are "evil".
[/quote]

These people probably don't really understand the Catholic stance. There are Catholics that claim Catholicism should accept abortion, euthanasia, contraception, female priests, and many other things; just because they claim to be good, obedient Catholics doesn't mean that they *are*. If you see a Catholic advocating any of the above just imagine that you're on phatmass and they have an 'I don't rep the Church' tag.

On the topic of God killing people: God isn't bound by the same rules we are. For one thing, death and destruction of a person are entirely different intents to God than they are to humans. If God says "your life on earth is done," He's not saying "I am obliterating you," He's saying "time for the next stage." With that in mind, people who kill someone typically *are* saying "I'm intending to obliterating you." That is much different than changing where someone lives. In morality, intent matters as much as the action itself. The reason for this is that morality is primarily a function of how you change yourself. It just happens that by changing yourself for the better, you change everyone else for the better as well.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1307379040' post='2250446']
I thought you would. It seems up your alley. I also subscribe to it.[/quote]

Good And now for the really difficult thing that influences and underlies morality which is how "harm" would be defined and in which situations the same "harm" would not be as "harmful" in others. That's the main difficulty that my secular and atheistic point of view has to deal with in situations.

[quote]That's a reasonable answer. I think it makes a difference how the person is informed; i.e. if the person is informed prior to being emotionally invested in the other person, or in 'the heat of the moment' but I'm guessing you would agree with that.[/quote]

I think the main thing here is people have to accept responsibility for their actions. If two people voluntarily decide to risk their health and lives knowingly and something happens, it's pointless to blame it on others if it happens. They should then respect the decisions of others as to whether they would want to risk their lives or not.

[quote]Well, the Church *does* restrict itself to moral issues, but there are times where someone thinks that something is a moral issue, but it really isn't. Case in point: heliocentricity. Why would it make a lick of difference to a person's morality if God made x spin around y or y spin around x? *shrugs*[/quote]

LOL

We make it all about a credibility issue about the Church in general, especially with its claims to infallibility.

[quote]The reason that this conversation is important to morality is that it deals with things that change how people live for the rest of their lives. Even 'casual relationships' have potentially lifelong consequences for one or both individuals. (Or for the people that are created out of that relationship!) One of the principles of Christianity is that you must treat all other people with respect, thus it's not acceptable to only look at the risks from your own perspective, but also how it will change the other person.[/quote]

Yes, and I certainly think that people should be more responsible.

And this raises another point: many Christians that I know, in order to avoid responsibility place full blame on the devil (I'm not generalising here, I'm just saying that belief in the devil gives you that option) and to me such a thought is hardly moral.

[quote]These people probably don't really understand the Catholic stance. There are Catholics that claim Catholicism should accept abortion, euthanasia, contraception, female priests, and many other things; just because they claim to be good, obedient Catholics doesn't mean that they *are*. If you see a Catholic advocating any of the above just imagine that you're on phatmass and they have an 'I don't rep the Church' tag.[/quote]

Well I don't know what will happen in the future, though if the Church is going to change or tweak its doctrines, it's going to happen from pressure on the inside, not others on the outside.

[quote]On the topic of God killing people: God isn't bound by the same rules we are. For one thing, death and destruction of a person are entirely different intents to God than they are to humans. If God says "your life on earth is done," He's not saying "I am obliterating you," He's saying "time for the next stage." With that in mind, people who kill someone typically *are* saying "I'm intending to obliterating you." That is much different than changing where someone lives. In morality, intent matters as much as the action itself. The reason for this is that morality is primarily a function of how you change yourself. It just happens that by changing yourself for the better, you change everyone else for the better as well.[/quote]

Hmm..that's an interesting point, if you believe that life doesn't end after death then it doesn't seem as cheap.

Have you ever read Machiavelli's The Prince, by any chance? I brought that up a while ago because of of the similarities between god and Machiavelli's conception of a ruler are striking.

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306985925' post='2249051']
I agree that the blame game is pointless when trying to place the onus on another's hands for what that person hasn't done, but the whole point I've been making here is that 'atheism' really doesn't say much about what you can blame in the first place. If you say that atheists did something and it were true, then I wouldn't deny it, but when you speak of 'atheism', it's a non thing to begin with.

As for Christianity and all other positive belief systems (meaning that they [i]have[/i] structured beliefs) I think it's perfectly valid to criticize the beliefs, given that you're aware that people are not the same as the systems they try to follow. Though I agree now that it's pointless to play the blame game for what a belief system caused in the past but no longer does today. I'll make a more conscious effort not to fall into that game from now on, though that still doesn't mean that I think that the claims that today's Christians make shouldn't be challenged if deemed bad or unreasonable for our current knowledge and values.[/quote]
If you want to excuse atheism from all blame as a negation or a "non thing," then logically one should not defend it either, much less promote it. A "non thing" has absolutely zero value.

But it's good to see that you've decided that you agree with me that the "blame game" is pointless.

[quote]Another illustration to make my point :

Say someone were to say that theists were responsible for the worst atrocities in human history and then goes on to list a number of things that one sub group within the larger group of 'theists' such as Muslims did and attribute it to Catholics, just because your belief system is also contained within the category even though let's say the only thing that you shared in common was a belief in god.

As for the atheism example, if you want to criticize humanism which is what most atheists are for what humanists have done, it's one thing because those [i]are [/i]a set of beliefs and the categorization would be valid. I'm not a Communist or much less a Stalinist or Maoist, so...go tell [i]them[/i] how bad their ideologies are.[/quote]
I've actually heard the whole "theists" spiel from atheists on here in the past, and found it just as stupid, as well as inaccurate. (Atheistic governments have been responsible for more murders and atrocities in a shorter span of time that all the Christian and Muslims put together.)

You may not subscribe to Communism (as I've agreed with many times here), but the Communists were no less atheistic than you are.

Unlike the Christian Faith, there is nothing about atheism to prevent one from following a murderous ideology such as Communism.

On the other hand, the strongest and clearest opposition to such evil ideologies as Communism and Nazism has come from religion, especially from the Catholic Church.
A Christian could not follow such bloody ideologies without violating his Faith, and if he is sincere in his Christian beliefs, must consider judgement before Almighty God for his actions. Not so for the atheist.
If an atheist truly believes that mass murder is necessary to advance his earthly goals, what's there to stop him?


[quote]Yes, though you do know that the basic ideas there are way older than the Old Testament, right? The golden rule included.[/quote]
As a Christian, I believe that the laws of morality are in fact eternal, and have been written on the hearts of men from the beginning, though they are often obscured by sin and falsehood.
And the fact is that most societies in the ancient world did not subscribe to all the tenants of Judaeo-Christian morality.

But to an atheist, how old laws of morality are shouldn't really matter, since all morality would be man-made and subjective.

[quote]Some morality can overlap very well between athiests and thiests of all religions, though atheism has nothing to say about those issues. You can't infer what someone thinks is moral based on them being an athiest. [/quote]
Any morality an atheist might have would by definition have to come from something completely outside of atheism.

What does logically follow from atheism is that all moral laws must be man-made, subjective, and ultimately arbitrary. An atheist could in fact follow a very strict code of morality if he so chose, but could just as consistently choose to follow no moral code at all. After all, as Sartre said, if God is dead, everything is permitted.
The only reason for an atheist to declare one code of morality better than another, or than none at all, is subjective personal preference.

(I know there's been a whole other thread started on that topic, though - just stating what I see as relevant here.)

[quote]It makes [u]no[/u] sense for a totalitarian government to try and eradicate a religion simply because they don't believe. That would be like persecuting people for believing in garden gnomes.

The difference between people that believe in gnomes and those that believe in gods, from an atheistic and even anti religious perspective is that gnomes don't have an organised following that might pose a political threat. Gnomes don't have Churches and the equivalent of a governmental Head such as the Pope in the case of Catholicism and the Patriarch as in the case of the eastern Orthodox, not to mention bishops etc which do wield some power over people. It's a real threat to a totalitarian dictator.[/quote]
Atheist Communists believed religion was a lie and an obstacle to human progress and happiness as they saw it, and thus should be fought and eradicated as much as possible.

I'm sure your view of religion is fairly similar, although you may be much less fanatical in your opposition to organized religion, and have moral scruples which dictate that your opposition to religion should not involve physical violence and such.

The Communists do not share your particular moral scruples, but if there is no God, Communist "morality" is no more or less valid than your own.

Of course, the Communists (correctly) saw religion as a threat to their godless and totalitarian rule, but that does not mean their atheism played no part in their hatred of religion.

And, again, the actions of hate and evil frequently do not make logical sense. There was little sense to the Liquidation of the Kulaks, nor the Nazi Holocaust.
The existence of evil in the world, and the often insane hatred of the forces of evil in the world for Christ and Christianity is in fact one reason I'm personally convinced of the truth of the Christian Faith.



[quote]Just to clear any doubts.



I'll try to focus them from now on and blame them for the evils that are both relevent and not falsely attributed by me. [/quote]
Okay . . .

I still challenge you to read the entire New Testament, and tell me that it promotes violence.


J[quote]eez. :rolleyes:Talk about missing the point completely...




Yeah, because happiness is all about having a lot of money and things. Nothing buys more joy than those.



Whoa, whoa, whoa...rewind...


"These are African Christians who live in harsh and sometimes hopeless conditions, not the happy and satisfied Christians that live a normal life with its ups and downs but get by."

Telephone game...right there...

Maybe I should've elaborated a bit more on the comparison. The 'poor' people (who were not all Christians btw) were not below 'miserably poor' line that divides those that do get by (work, have a house, have food etc) with those who live with up to one to two dollars per family per day. Many in Africa would be classified as that second kind of poor.



I'm glad I lack your uncanny ability to put words in another's mouth and then attack them.

Where did I say that religious faith was [i]mere [/i]escapism? I said that in certain conditions it can easily become that and that I find it totally understandable, though not in the condescending way. I'm not judging these people in these circumstances.

But hey, if the situation really is hopeless and there really only so much they can do with all the other factors that go on then who can blame them? [b]Though religion for those has its good side and it's bad, meaning they find some sort of meaning in their lives but not for their lives.[/b][/quote]
Sorry, but the last sentence I bolded makes no sense whatever.

As all this is based on subjective categorizations of huge groups of people without much objective to back any of it up, I don't think there's really a meaningful debate to be had here.

I'll just say that there's lots of reliable testimony of many cases of the Christian Faith making a very real and very positive impact and change in the lives of all kinds of people from all walks of life and all circumstances.

You like to blame the Faith for all kinds of evils, yet consistently ignore or downplay the very real good it does in the lives of billions.