User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 30

  1. #11
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metamorphosis View Post
    There is a reason for morals and why opinions on them differ among different people.
    Yes, in Public Schools in Australia an Ethics class is now being offered as an alternative to Scripture class.

    And I would think an Ethics class would be more open to evidence and reason.

  2. #12
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Ethics is not based upon empirical factors Victors. :rolli:

  3. #13
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Ethics is not based upon empirical factors Victor. :rolli:
    This is true, just as Faith is not based on empirical factors.

    However attempts are being made by Sam Harris for instance to base ethics on neurology, and the evolutionary biologists are linking ethics with survival.

  4. #14
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    That's more of an explaination of ethics rather than an actual basis of ethics as being true. You can't neurologically prove that throwing three month old babies in a meat grinder is wrong.

  5. #15
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    ^ exactly.

  6. #16
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    That's more of an explaination of ethics rather than an actual basis of ethics as being true. You can't neurologically prove that throwing three month old babies in a meat grinder is wrong.
    Well we wouldn't have survived as a species if we made a habit of throwing babies onto meat grinders, any more than we would have survived if we followed God's instruction to Abraham to gut and sacrifice his son.

  7. #17
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Well we wouldn't have survived as a species if we made a habit of throwing babies onto meat grinders, any more than we would have survived if we followed God's instruction to Abraham to gut and sacrifice his son.
    That still doesnt prove that throwing three month olds is wrong. And btw, Abraham didn't sacrifice his son. An angel intervenes and instead a goat is sacrificed. If you read the Bible, or watch the History Channel, you would've known that.


  8. #18
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default As the Bible itself states.........

    "When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." He said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called the name of that place, "The LORD will provide"; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided."
    --Genesis 22:9-14

  9. #19
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Abraham didn't sacrifice his son. An angel intervenes and instead a goat is sacrificed.
    This is true, but still God gave the order.

    And this is an order that could only have been given by a child abusing God.

    So it is no surprise He created a child abusing Church.

  10. #20
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Well we wouldn't have survived as a species if we made a habit of throwing babies onto meat grinders, any more than we would have survived if we followed God's instruction to Abraham to gut and sacrifice his son.
    Well, the thing is, science does not tell us why surviving as a species is good. It may tell us that species innately foster their own growth, but it doesn't clarify why one ought not to, for instance, start a nuclear holocaust. Science is not a being that cares for one's well-being. It is a tool, just like logic, that we use for inferring knowledge.

    So, your premise that one ought to preserve one's species does not come scientifically. I think it comes metaphysically, in one sense or another. From the depths of one's subjective values.

Similar Threads

  1. Do cognitive functions exist in an universal law excluded from human character?
    By jakopic in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-01-2015, 09:16 AM
  2. International Law/Human Rights
    By PocketFullOf in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-15-2014, 12:14 AM
  3. Lawlessness vs lawfulness
    By thoughtlost in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-10-2013, 09:22 PM
  4. Scientific Knowledge vs. Catholic Dogma
    By Kephalos in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-29-2012, 09:21 PM
  5. Law and Order vs. CSI
    By ygolo in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-16-2008, 05:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO