Is morality objective or subjective?

[promethean75]

1000000644.jpg

[Dubious]

Like I said, since the dawn of civilization, long before the crazy jews and Christians thought they heard a voice from the sky.

"The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest written records of identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to Bronze Age Egypt and Mesopotamia from around 3000 to 1200 BCE. Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes, while further advancements, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India."

There is the scientific method itself, which has been practiced forfuckingever, and then there are established and formalized fields of science that are cataloged and developed over time. The former does not depend on the latter, but the latter depends on the former, the method. Don't mistake the two.

I've seen some audacious shit in my forum days, but this one that 'science owes christianity' is dumber than a jar of four bean salad.

I remember something Carl Sagan said, I think it was in Cosmos, that if it weren't for religion and based on the way science was already advancing in the ancient world, we could possibly have landed on the moon by the time Dante wrote the Divine Comedy.

[Harbal]

There's no way they could have seen Darwin coming.

Actually, Darwin was not highly original, nor was he the first person to want to find a way of arguing that existence came about without Creation. See Lamarck, Lyell, Buffon, Wallace, Hutton...etc. He was just the first person to present such a theory in a way that it might be believed at all...provided, of course, one was eager enough to believe it already.

I know Darwin wasn't the only one, but he's the most iconic, and researching and mentioning the others might have made me look like I was showing off. I daresay the theory met with quite a mixed reception to begin with, but most folks seem eager enough to believe it now.

Intense curiosity is a basic human characteristic, and science is merely an inevitable consequence of that.

Except it's not. The Chinese were curious. The Indians were curious. The Africans were curious. The Aboriginals were curious. All people are curious. None of them discovered science. So again, I have to ask you why they didn't. What's the alternate theory?

Well they're all doing it now, and I don't think China and India have turned Christian.

I would simply put it down to our inability to stop asking the question, "why"?.

If that were it, science would have lept out of China or India long before it appeared in a little island in the Atlantic.

And the reason it didn't is because they weren't Christians?

Actually, atheists probably make better scientists than Christians,

Atheists now can do science. Left to their own devices, Atheists would probably have never made science at all, anymore than polytheists did. They had no reason to suppose it would even be possible, and according to many of them, no faith with which to believe in that which they had not already seen.

Not only are you Christians natural scientists, you've also got extraordinary imagination.

[Harbal]

Like I said, since the dawn of civilization, long before the crazy jews and Christians thought they heard a voice from the sky.

"The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest written records of identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to Bronze Age Egypt and Mesopotamia from around 3000 to 1200 BCE. Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes, while further advancements, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India."

There is the scientific method itself, which has been practiced forfuckingever, and then there are established and formalized fields of science that are cataloged and developed over time. The former does not depend on the latter, but the latter depends on the former, the method. Don't mistake the two.

I've seen some audacious shit in my forum days, but this one that 'science owes christianity' is dumber'na jar of four bean salad.

But surely you know that believing in God makes you think more scientifically. But not just any old God, it only works if you believe in the right one.

[Age]

"Do you sense that I am vulnerable, prom?"

No, but at the same time, if i observe two fellows who continue to debate even tho each one isn't budging, i feel like one or the other may be on the brink of changin his mind.

I just don't wanna lose ya, Harb. I've seen what christian philosophers are capable of and I'm terrified of seeing it happen again.

Worry not, prom. Whatever it is about people that makes them susceptible to religious beliefs, it is totally absent in me.

I would not be so sure of this "harbal".

Now, hear me out here. I am in no way suggesting that you are susceptible to absolutely any 'theological' belief at all.

However, by definition, 'religion', itself, can be a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion and/or a particular system of faith and worship. So, having a 'religious belief', literally, does not have to have absolutely anything to do with 'theology' at all. As there are people who have a very strong pursuit and/or interest, followed with a great devotion, for example, for things like; science, consumerism, communism, socialism, democrats, republics, and/or capitalism.

There are also many upon many who are very fanatical, or 'religious', for example, in having absolute faith and belief in the 'scientific method' and who worship and praise some people, like they superhuman, and/or worship 'the word' and writings in 'scientific literature'. you can see this very clearly in when and how some people believe, absolutely, that the Universe began, and is expanding, solely because it is written in 'a book', and was said and claimed by someone, who is believed to believed to be 'super intelligent' or have some sort of 'super power/ability'.

Some people, usually called "scientists" even go out 'to prove' true and right what was said and claimed by 'those' who are worshiped. But, even when the results show otherwise, they will still 'tinker' with them and/or word things in a way, which backs up and supports 'the leader' or 'the one' who 'knows best'. These religious/believing "scientists", when asked for actual proof, will even going to the extent of saying and claiming, 'It is written in the book'.

So, if 'this way' of 'looking at' and thus then 'seeing' things sound familiar, then this is just because having belief, and/or faith, can happen in regards to so many different, and even opposing things. But, 'the process' is still 'the exact same' and can and did happen to every adult human being, in the days when this is being written. So, this means that absolutely everyone is susceptible to 'religion', or to just 'believing things'.

Although part of this might on first hearing sound somewhat very contrary to, 'current,' 'popular belief', in the days when this is being written, the Truth here, however, will, (and was), finally revealed, and understood.

I think I might have a gene missing, or something.

Genes have absolutely nothing at all to do with 'belief', itself.

Just like belief has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'genes', themselves.

[Age]

As someone who has never deviated from correct grammar, please point out the errors in mine.

No, thank you. Go back to your own earlier question, and you'll figure it out.

No sir! You tell me where I've been grammatically incorrect. You made the assertion, so you must know where I went wrong; so tell me!

Here it is again; it's very short and would hardly take any time to point out the error....

If your brain tells you to believe in the bible, why do you believe that without any encountered skepticism?

I see absolutely nothing wrong here regarding 'grammar' at all. But, considering the fact that I am not even sure what the word 'grammar' means, nor is even referring to, exactly, do not take 'my word' on this. I, however, see absolutely nothing wrong with this very straightforward question, which appears to be asked from a Truly OPEN perspective, and just for clarification only.

So, why did you "immanuel can" make what appears, at first glance anyway, to be a Truly False claim here and/or a deceptively planned attempt to try to deflect away from what appears to be just a Truly Honest clarifying question?

So, why will you just not answer, and clarify, the question posed and asked to you here "immanuel can"?

It is already very, very obvious to readers here that you will try to ignore and deflect away from any and all questions, which if you answered Honestly and OPENLY you would then contradict and even self-refute what you have previous said, and 'currently' believe, is true, but let 'us' see what your OPEN and Honest answer here is regarding 'that question' and, Why you will not just answer 'that question'?

Show 'us' and let 'us' SEE the God within you, or you can just keep EXPOSING the devil and deception lying, in wait, within you.

[Immanuel Can]

I daresay the theory met with quite a mixed reception to begin with, but most folks seem eager enough to believe it now.

Some always were. For millennia, literally, there have been people desperately searching for such an explanation. The important question is why they were so eager, and why so many are so eager now. Why should one long so much to eradicate the idea of God from the universe? Are they longing to have an existence with no objective meaning, no objective values, no objective truth, no ultimate purpose, no life beyond our mere 75 years or so, and so on? Why would anyone prefer such a thing to any alternative?

I would think that's unlikely. Much more likely, the Freudian explanation applies: namely, that they longed to get rid of God so they could be in charge of themselves, solely and exclusively, and beholden to nothing. That was the big attraction of Atheism, I suspect. And it certainly squares with what research has shown about the demographics of Atheism, even today.

Intense curiosity is a basic human characteristic, and science is merely an inevitable consequence of that.

Except it's not. The Chinese were curious. The Indians were curious. The Africans were curious. The Aboriginals were curious. All people are curious. None of them discovered science. So again, I have to ask you why they didn't. What's the alternate theory?

Well they're all doing it now, and I don't think China and India have turned Christian.

Nor have the Atheists, for that matter. They've borrowed ably from what Christianity generated, thus admitting the greatness of the achievement, and the failure of their own to produce such a revolution. But it would seem that none of them was capable of discovering science. Why not?

[Harbal]

I daresay the theory met with quite a mixed reception to begin with, but most folks seem eager enough to believe it now.

Some always were. For millennia, literally, there have been people desperately searching for such an explanation.

What people, and how do you know that?

The important question is why they were so eager, and why so many are so eager now.

Well I think you just made that up about people being eager for millennia. I wouldn't describe the general acceptance of evolution as being the result of eagerness. It's just part of the pool of general knowledge now, just like the stuff we know about black holes and atoms. I don't think many people treat the matter as being particularly significant, or relevant to how they live their lives; I certainly don't.

Why should one long so much to eradicate the idea of God from the universe?

I think you sometimes forget that not everyone is as preoccupied with God as you are.

Are they longing to have an existence with no objective meaning, no objective values, no objective truth, no ultimate purpose, no life beyond our mere 75 years or so, and so on? Why would anyone prefer such a thing to any alternative?

Perhaps they just prefer to be realistic. And maybe you have an unusually strong longing for objective meaning and purpose.

I would think that's unlikely. Much more likely, the Freudian explanation applies:

Oh, Freud is suddenly your best friend when what he said just happens to suit you.

Well they're all doing it now, and I don't think China and India have turned Christian.

Nor have the Atheists, for that matter. They've borrowed ably from what Christianity generated, thus admitting the greatness of the achievement, and the failure of their own to produce such a revolution. But it would seem that none of them was capable of discovering science. Why not?

I have no problem recognising that the Church was probably responsible for providing the education that gave the suitably minded the wherewithal to develop scientific methods and practices, but why on earth you think that is anything to do with God, or their attitude towards him, is baffling. Why would believing in God make anyone more inclined to discover science? That is an utterly bizarre connection.

[Harbal]

I think I might have a gene missing, or something.

Genes have absolutely nothing at all to do with 'belief', itself.

Just like belief has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'genes', themselves.

When I first joined the forum I never used emojis. I detested them, but I got so fed up with being misunderstood that I finally gave in to using them as a way of better conveying my meaning or intention. You may have noticed the one at the end of the comment you quoted. I put it there to indicate that I wasn't being entirely serious.

Guess what I'm going to do now.

[Age]

There's no way they could have seen Darwin coming.

Actually, Darwin was not highly original, nor was he the first person to want to find a way of arguing that existence came about without Creation.

Who cares?

Are you under some sort of illusion that "immanuel can" was somehow 'highly original', or that any other human being was?

The only way that 'Existence' is HERE-NOW is not because It 'came about' from something nor nothing. Existence, itself, always exists, and does so because of an always 'evolving-creating' process.

Try to argue for 'one' or 'the other' is, literally, just a Truly 'fruitless' exercise. As has thousands upon thousands of years, hitherto when this is being written, has proved irrefutably True.

See Lamarck, Lyell, Buffon, Wallace, Hutton...etc. He was just the first person to present such a theory in a way that it might be believed at all...provided, of course, one was eager enough to believe it already.

Well all of you human beings can and who do believe things to be true only do so because you are 'eager enough' to believe 'it' to be true.

And, you are actually living proof of this 'now', "immanuel can".

For surely you believe that absolutely Truly illogical, irrational, nonsensical, ridiculous, and absurd things you do, because you are 'eager enough' to believe in those sorts of things.

There is not other logical reason why you believe things to be true, which could never ever even be possibility to be true.

Far from it: without that primary "leap of faith" that expects (prior to any evidence, of course) that the universe will turn out to rational, mathematical, logical and interpretable by our reasoning powers, there's no likelihood science would ever have existed at all.

Intense curiosity is a basic human characteristic, and science is merely an inevitable consequence of that.

Except it's not. The Chinese were curious. The Indians were curious. The Africans were curious. The Aboriginals were curious. All people are curious. None of them discovered science. So again, I have to ask you why they didn't. What's the alternate theory?

So, to "immanuel can" here now, 'Intense curiosity is not a basic human characteristic', although it immediately went on to say and claim that all the above peoples 'were curios' anyway. Which was from where 'science', itself, obviously 'evolved into being created'.

And that assumption only comes from two beliefs key to Christianity and Judaism: namely, the belief in a single Creator who operates according to rational principles, and the belief that He intends us to know and understand our world.

I would simply put it down to our inability to stop asking the question, "why"?.

If that were it, science would have lept out of China or India long before it appeared in a little island in the Atlantic.

Neither of those two assumptions underwrites any form of paganism or polytheism or gnosticism, and it certainly doesn't underwrite Atheism,

Actually, atheists probably make better scientists than Christians,

Atheists now can do science. Left to their own devices, Atheists would probably have never made science at all, anymore than polytheists did. They had no reason to suppose it would even be possible, and according to many of them, no faith with which to believe in that which they had not already seen.

[Age]

No, thank you. Go back to your own earlier question, and you'll figure it out.

No sir! You tell me where I've been grammatically incorrect.

Go and read your question. You'll figure it out.

Here we can see another prime example of 'deception' and of trying to 'deceive', which is an actual 'hallmark', or 'the stamp', of 'the devil', itself.

[Iwannaplato]

When I first joined the forum I never used emojis. I detested them

Me too, and me too. But then a kind of when in Rome malaise crept into me. Sometimes they are shortcuts. Sometimes it almost feels polite. I just shuddered.

[Age]

No sir! You tell me where I've been grammatically incorrect.

Go and read your question. You'll figure it out.

I can't find a single error! You made the statement it's grammatically incorrect, now prove it or is this just another one of your many hot air assertions to accuse somebody of something because you can't argue against anything else they said!

There is absolutely nothing incorrect in that question of yours "dubious". "Immanuel can" is just anyway it can to 'try to' avoid answering that question openly and honestly, and this is because "immanuel can" knows, although maybe not yet consciously, what the consequences will be.

[Age]

Go and read your question. You'll figure it out.

I can't find a single error!

Then you deserve to remain oblivious. Shame on your grammar teacher.

See here this is what is known, in the bible, as 'the work' of 'the devil'.

Although what is happening and occurring here is blatantly obvious from an 'outside perspective', "immanuel can", itself, probably cannot yet see and comprehend what is going on here, exactly, because 'it' has been completely overtaken and being overrun by lies, deceptions, and foolishness, itself.

Also, let us not forget that "immanuel can" has many times already previously 'tried' this trick of; 'There is something wrong in the way you have worded your question, your counter, or your refutation, to me', but when it is pointed out there is none, "immanuel can" will come up with the most weakest of excuses, and further attempts of absolute 'deception', like, for example, 'It is there you just have to go look for 'it' [whatever the 'it' is, exactly], and if you do not find it, you will remain oblivious'.

Considering this one believes in God and refers to the bible, the very thing that this is one is doing and showing here are the primest of examples of what is called 'the devil's work'.

This one has even gone to lengths of 'trying to deceive' here by stating: 'Shame on your grammar teacher'.

There are absolutely no lengths that people will go to when 'trying to hide', and/or 'are cowering', from the actual Truth of things.

They will also say just about absolutely anything, as well when 'trying to' back up and support 'their beliefs', which cannot be backed up nor support with actual Truth nor proof.

[Age]

I can't find a single error!

Then you deserve to remain oblivious. Shame on your grammar teacher.

Shame on you for being a miserable liar and coward, which by now, most here know you are. How much more proof does one need!

No more proof is needed that "immanuel can" is obviously clearly 'cowering' and 'lying' here, in an attempt to just not answer a Truly simply asked question, for clarification.

I am not sure how many times these people had to read and/or here, that it is always better to have the actual proof for the actual statement or claim that one wants to express and share, and especially publicly, before one expresses 'their views' at all.