Jump to content

Night FM

Senior Members
  • Posts

    222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Night FM

  1. I don't have a full grasp of them, but my view is that they essentially acknowledge the equivalent of a God or supreme being or principle of the cosmos, even if they don't say they do outright. (I'm probably thinking of Buddhism in specific). I'm also aware that there are polytheistic sects, but the more intellectual variants seem to reject the polytheistic pantheons and acknowledge a monotheistic God or equivalent. To me, this is similar to how the more enlightened Greek and Roman philosophers rejected the popular pantheon of deities and acknowledged a monotheistic God or some equivalent.
  2. When someone argues that it should be legal to kill and eat humans since they aren't an endangered species, then maybe I'll consider the idea that humans aren't special in some way, but as of now I believe it's more than obvious that they are, regardless of their common ancestry. I was talking about the intellectual potential, not the practical ability to do so without the required pre-existing technology. Another example of how humans are different than animals: https://www.jstor.org/stable/29762596 Sexual aggression, or behaviors which would be considered rape if humans did it exists as a mating behavior in the great Apes. However, humans recognize that this behavior is morally wrong despite it having a biological basis. Humans don't believe that simply because "other apes do this" that they should do it as well.
  3. People had the same intellectual potential. Obviously, they wouldn't have the practical ability to "build one from scratch" since doing so relied on pre-existing technology. But if a genius from the days of ancient Greece was time-warped to the present day, he would be significantly more intelligent than the average human.
  4. We've seen people with the intellectual ability to since as far back as recorded human history. I've already explained it. It's not that complicated. The zoological definitions are based solely on biological similarities that humans have with animals. Since they ignore the types of activities and needs which humans pursue that make them distinct from animals, they are irrelevant to the argument, since whether these claims about human biology are "true" or not does not in any way change the argument, and no one is saying that humans "don't" share a common ancestor. There is nothing compelling people to ignore human achievements in sciences, arts, philosophy, and so on and reduce humanity to the level of purely biological characteristics. And there are multitudes of other arguments to be made that humans are unique and should be treated as unique. For example, do you believe that laws against murder should apply to killing fruit flies? Or do believe that it should be legal to kill and eat a human because it's legal to kill and eat a cow? I doubt it. Common sense alone is enough to dictate that humans are unique regardless of what biological traits they share with animals.
  5. Science is irrelevant since zoological classifications don't take into account things that humans create, such as arts, sciences, and so forth. I'm not buying the explanation that the differences seen in humans are reducible to the brain to begin with. And regardless of what role the brains of humans play in the things they create, we don't see animals with "larger" brains building supercomputers. That's a good place to start from. I'd argue it's self-evident enough.
  6. Less complex. I'm arguing that humans are distinct enough to be classified as separate based on definitions outside the scope of mere biological similarities. Not necessarily so. And a "few" large differences can be more significant than "many" small ones. That depends on if you define a human brain as "just another brain" as opposed to a unique gland.
  7. I'm curious how many of these denominations are predicated on simply reading the Bible in its entirety. I'll wager that most of them aren't.
  8. Having a common ancestor is irrelevant to the fact that humans are significantly different than other members of the animal kingdom, such as in their ability to create arts, sciences, philosophies, technologies, and so forth. Often, whether intentionally or unintentionally, referring to humans as "animals, apes", and so on is being done to reduce humans to the status of lesser animals.
  9. It's not my fault the science is wrong due to being based on bad definitions. The vast differences between humans and other living things are more than obvious. The biological similarities are irrelevant to this point. So a reductive definition which simply groups living things together based solely on biological similarities while ignoring the differences is very often a bad one indeed.
  10. The context is pretty simple. Those are laws of the ancient state of Israel. If some people decide they're wrong "in a vacuum" because they either didn't read or didn't understand the context, then that's heretical. The New Testament makes it pretty clear what the relevance of the Old Law is, and obviously there was no commandment to institute and enforce those laws into perpetuity. No one is cherry-picking. Those are laws of an ancient nation, not perpetual commandments that apply "in a vacuum". No one is saying that any of the laws of the ancient state of Israel should be laws today in the developed world, and nothing in the New Testament indicates that they should or have any legal relevance outside of Israel. If the foundation is based on not understanding the Bible to begin with, then it's not worth commenting on. See above. It's not my fault that people who claim to be "Christian" bastardize the Bible as atheists likewise do.
  11. No I would be right. People aren't animals. Or apes. Or anything of the sort. The definition of "animal" was made up by people, and it's a bad one inasfar as it ignores the differences between mankind and other living things.
  12. No, they were the laws of an ancient nation. You're talking them out of context.
  13. I want to hear others' opinions on under what circumstances should war occur, and how it should be waged. (I'm aware that there are existing bodies such as the Geneva convention which regulate the rules of war). I'm not of the opinion that war can never realistically occur, but obviously there should be restraints on it.
  14. Giving free will and intending for people to use it in a certain way are two different things.
  15. It's a moot point, because people would come up with the idea on their own that there is a God even if all existing religions disappeared.
  16. No, as I said, the classification of humans in the animal kingdom is arbitrary and ignores the differences between humans and animals. In other words, the "things don't matter", since there are plenty of other, arguably more significant things which are being ignored. Humans decided to call humans "animals". They don't have to; they could decide differently. People can classify things and infinite number of ways based on an infinite number of similarities and differences. People simply invented the term "animals" and classified various living things into it based purely on biological similarities, when in reality, they could just as well change the classification or the axioms which the entire system of classification is based on to begin with. (As an example, we could classify creatures into categories based on how philosophical they are, or the types of technologies they create, rather than based on biological similarities and differences, and if we did this, then humans would likely be in a category purely of their own compared to other living things).
  17. Much of that, both Catholic and Protestant, is heretical and not based on source texts, such as the Bible. Source texts and their interpretations get corrupted over the ages for various reasons (e.x. a desire to profit from it by making it mass-marketable, and omitting the parts that aren't easy to sell to the "fast food" demographic). It would be a mistake to simply cite what is perceived as "mainstream" pretend that it is an authority for the entirety of Christianity. If Jesus is the son of God, then it would be silly to conflate the death of Jesus with the death of another. His death obviously carried great symbolic meaning. No, the original sin was specifically acquiring the knowledge of good and evil. It had little to do with arbitrary "disobedience" without regard for what its actual consequences were or who was the source of that authority. Just as disobedience in the name of God is promoted in the Bible (e.x. Daniel disobeyed the King and was thrown into the lion's den for continuing to pray to God even when the law forbid it). I'm not sure what you mean by "guilt". If you mean a person merely feeling "embarrassed" because someone criticizes them (whether the criticism is even valid or not), then that isn't genuine "remorse" or repentance to begin with. But as far as humans having things to feel genuinely "guilty" for doing, I am sure that everyone does. Just as there is much evidence that mankind is born with a sinful nature, given that natural and biological impulses play a role in many of the destructive behaviors that humans do (e.x. rape, murder, etc). So you're assuming that people having reasons to have a guilty conscience is necessarily something "bad" to begin with. Maybe you just want people to be free to do any destructive behavior they want to without guilt for anything they do. I'm not sure.
  18. You're talking about the laws of Israel of the Old Testament (with the exception of "not cutting hair", which wasn't forbidden in the Old Testament to my knowledge. It was a recommendation Paul made in the New Testament). You can't just take bits and pieces out of context and treat it like an arbitrary set of rules that are completely removed from the source text.
  19. Off the top of my head. *God created man in his own image. *In Christ Jesus, there is no difference between slave and free. As far as a piece of specific text forbidding every specific thing under the sun, that would be impossible and impractical. And while I'm aware that not every specific thing which is considered immoral by society derives specifically from Biblical text, that doesn't mean that people can't make good arguments for it being immoral (e.x. rape, genocide, etc). Likewise, if someone wants to justify something, they could theoretically use the Bible to justify anything. (e.x. Polygamy exists in the Old Testament, and there were no formal age of consent laws in Biblical times, so someone could use the Bible to justify polygamy or child marriage), but that doesn't mean that most people would do so, or that sound arguments can be made against not doing so. It's a moot point, because if one believed they were only morally accountable to themself, they could justify doing anything they wanted to (e.x. rape, murder, etc). Even if you claim that don't avoid those things out of "fear of God" but out of some higher sense of moral purpose, you're still appealing to a higher source of morality than yourself. You would just have trouble rationalizing what this is or where it comes from, since it's not something that could be verified (e.x. scientifically) beyond your own intuitions.
  20. I'd argue, no, that's just an arbitrary zoological classification, and we could just as easily classify humans as separate from the animal kingdom, if the axioms which said classification is predicated on is changed entirely. So, in other words, humans are not animals unless someone decides they are for some reason or another. Simply having shared biology with animals doesn't beget such a classification anymore than should a battleship and a kitchen knife be put in the same arbitrary category simply by the virtue of them both being "made of metal". Well "purity" is subjective, and obviously what a specific culture's definition of "purity" is will vary (e.x. what might have been considered "pure" in the Victorian era or in an Islamic country wouldn't necessarily be the same as today in a Western country). Regardless, I think some common sense can be applied. For example, if a person devoted themselves to a lifetime of participation in hook-up culture without any desire to form deeper romantic bonds with a person, various issues could result from this, especially if everyone in a given society did. So we don't want to conflate the ethical issues regarding "consent" with the other issues, ethical and otherwise which could be posited. Generally, is something is consensual, this merely means that we don't believe the law should be involved in regulating it, regardless of what other ethical issues could come up that aren't within the realm of the of the law (and even then, this principle is not absolute. For example, certain types of incestuous relationships are illegal in many states even if "consensual").
  21. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303 CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. This article suggests that atheists are more likely to commit suicide. I see this as a negative aspect of atheism. Thoughts on this?
  22. Then that would be no different than with any legal system. And if you told me that the reason that laws exist against murder is due to a secret cabal desiring power and control, rather than the observable harm that murder causes, I would think that's absurd. The reality is that systems of social control exist in day-to-day life, whether they come from a "religion" or from secular laws and institutions, and I see no practical difference beyond what the laws and rules themselves might be. (I would agree that a law requiring people to attend Catholic mass would be different than a law against murder).
  23. I'm not sure why you have decided on that POV, but most if not all sects are heretical in some way or another. I would personally argue that true Christianity recognizes that certain human behaviors lead to suffering, and doesn't advocate good behavior solely as a means to get a reward (e.x. eternal life). Anyone can make a sect and call it "Christian", but that doesn't mean that it is, and sects often pander to whatever market they can profit from even if it contradicts source texts and so-forth. As an example, if someone interprets Christianity or the Bible as just a legalistic set of rules to obey, often without even regard for context, this is heretical and contradicts both Christ and Paul in the New Testament. But this will just end up being a "no-true Scotsman fallacy" and I can't prove it.
  24. I would also like to hear others' thoughts on whether or not science provides a path to living a meaningful life in the same vein as religion. I suppose that people can derive ethical values from scientific information, but others' thoughts on the matter is appreciated.
  25. I would like to hear how others reconcile with the problem of evil.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.