What are the odds?

JimiTime · 27-08-2008 11:40AM

There I was thinking it was a discussion about cake, and BAM its flippin Maths! Feckers did the same to me in school. Everyone, a Pi is a type of cake!! Mmmmmm Cake.

QED.

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 11:48AM

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Em, you're sounding a little crazy Wicknight.

Stayed up really late.... probably dreamt about this the whole night... and still on and on this am.

Yawn.

Not crazy, annoyed TravelJunkie, just annoyed.

PDN has constantly and consistently criticized (often personally) "skeptics" who have put forward alternative theories giving non-supernatural explanations for the events in the Bible particularly around topics such as the resurrection of Jesus.

Often these theories require assumption of details that are either not mentioned in the Bible or that contradict the Bible, just like PDN is doing here by suggesting that the measurements may have been 9.6 rather than 10, neatly allowing for his position that the description is accurate.

PDN has consistently teared down these types of assertions before as having no evidence and not being present in the Bible, often the only source we have for any of this stuff. He has often gone so far as to personally criticize the motivations of those who put forward these theories as being less than honorable. "Troll" seems to be his new favorite word.

It is then with both mild self satisfied amusement and some what bemusement that I now see him doing pretty much exactly the thing he is most critical of others on this forum doing.

My original point, going back to Vibes comments and PDN response to him, was that what is "reasonable explanation" for something explaining away an apparent mistake or error in the Bible is entirely subjective.

A believer will find almost anything reasonable if it continues to fit in with and support their belief. It doesn't matter how unlikely the explanation actually is. Rationality goes out the window. So long as it can fit, no matter how much of a square plug through a round hole the fit is, it is enough.

PDN would no doubt claim that this is exactly the type of thing he find with atheists who come to this forum to, in his mind, come up with any old excuse or nonsense to tear down Christian beliefs and find any reason or theory, not matter how unlikely and illogical, to say that it is all make believe and didn't happen.

It is funny that this criticism seems to extend only outwards in his case.

TravelJunkie · 27-08-2008 11:53AM

Fair enough if that's the point you're trying to make, but maybe you should pick a better example. Dimensions is probably the worst example you could've picked.

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 11:58AM

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Fair enough if that's the point you're trying to make, but maybe you should pick a better example. Dimensions is probably the worst example you could've picked.

Well no, its actually one of the best examples I could have picked because dimensions and maths are exact and not open to interpretation based on opinion or translation of abstract words such as "neighbor" or "brother".

Although that was before PDN and is rather creative way of getting around all that. While I finding the whole thing ridiculous I have to give him points for his creativeness. :pac:

bus77 · 27-08-2008 12:11PM

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Stayed up really late.... probably dreamt about this the whole night... and still on and on this am.

He did have me up at 3 in morning quick scanning wiki articles on metal casting. That's good work

Now I'm trying to picture the mold making process and if they would have tried to stick to precise measurements when making both the inner and outer mold.

TravelJunkie · 27-08-2008 12:19PM

So it all worked out in the end!

(Do we have a life?)

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 12:23PM

bus77 wrote: »

Now I'm trying to picture the mold making process and if they would have tried to stick to precise measurements when making both the inner and outer mold.

I imagine they would have stuck to one measurement, the diameter, and most likely used a 5 cubit string to form the circle. And they most likely would have used a round number for the diameter, 10 cubits makes perfect sense here. PDN idea that they would have picked 9.6 cubits for the diameter seems to have no basis and I can't imagine why they would pick such a precise measurement apparently at random.

TravelJunkie · 27-08-2008 12:25PM

I think you may have heard the last of PDN on this... next he'll move the thread to the engineering forum.

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 12:28PM

TravelJunkie wrote: »

I think you may have heard the last of PDN on this... next he'll move the thread to the engineering forum.

what are you, the narrator :pac:

why are you posting here?

TravelJunkie · 27-08-2008 12:40PM

Am I not allowed to post if I don't have any serious points to make? Oops.

Pompey Magnus · 27-08-2008 12:55PM

I don't know why the Christian trump card hasn't been played yet, maybe God miracuously did create a perfectly round basin whose ratio between its circumference and diameter was exactly 3:1. Argument over.

bus77 · 27-08-2008 01:04PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I imagine they would have stuck to one measurement, the diameter

So do I, but only at the beginning. Remember, they actually have to make the mold in the first place. So they would have had to make the inner 'bowl' shape mold first. I'd say they did it the way you described. But then a layer has to go on to make the full mold. The bible does say the bowl was of palms width in thickness, another unit of measure they used.

What this does to the measurements is a question for someone else

PDN · 27-08-2008 01:48PM

bus77 wrote: »

So do I, but only at the beginning. Remember, they actually have to make the mold in the first place. So they would have had to make the inner 'bowl' shape mold first. I'd say they did it the way you described. But then a layer has to go on to make the full mold. The bible does say the bowl was of palms width in thickness, another unit of measure they used.

What this does to the measurements is a question for someone else

I doubt that precision engineering was very advanced at the time. I would see the following as a perfectly plausible scenario.

The priests tell the craftsmen that they want a big bronze basin big enough to fill the empty space in front of the altar in the Temple.

So the craftsman goes in and, in time honoured fashion, uses his forearm to measure the area in cubits. Of course not everyone's forearms are exactly the same length - but it gives a good enough idea of how big the basin is to be. After all, nobody is specifying an exact precise measurement. It would make sense for him to measure the width of the area, thus working off the intended diameter rather than the circumference.

Then his fellow craftsmen work off his measurements. The end result is a basin that is big enough to fill the empty space and it looks great in the Temple. Everybody is happy whether the actual diameter is 9.6 or 10 cubits or whatever.

After the destruction of the Temple, a scribe wants to write down a description of what it looked like for future generations. He consults former priests and Temple workers and asks, "How big was that basin? Fifteen cubits across? Twenty?" "No," they answer, "Ten would be about right." "And the circumference?" "Oh, a good thirty cubits".

So the scribe sits down and writes a description of the Temple. He is not creating a blueprint for an engineer, nor is he writing a mathematics textbook. He simply wants future generations to get an idea of what a majestic building the Temple was and how impressive were its furnishings. So he describes everything in rounded figures, including the basin.

That is how real life works. Only a complete fathead expects a non-scientific description of something to conform to an engineer's standards of precision. Therefore we say there are 365 days in a year, that our holiday hotel was 400 yards from the beach, and that Dublin is 100 miles from Belfast. We are not in error, nor are we making a mistake, even though a year is actually slightly over 365 days (hence leap years), the hotel is 395 yards from the beach + an extra two foot four inches + whatever other fractions of an inch might be determined by a microscope, and Dublin to Belfast is actually 102 miles (and that is rounded to the nearest mile - never mind yards, feet and inches).

The description of the Temple is correct according to the conventions of the times and the level of precision we should expect from such a description written for such a purpose. If it were an engineering blueprint then we would expect greater precision, but that is clearly not its purpose.

Keep on beating your straw man, Wicknight. It only makes you look petty and unreasonable.

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 03:37PM

bus77 wrote: »

So do I, but only at the beginning. Remember, they actually have to make the mold in the first place. So they would have had to make the inner 'bowl' shape mold first. I'd say they did it the way you described. But then a layer has to go on to make the full mold. The bible does say the bowl was of palms width in thickness, another unit of measure they used.

What this does to the measurements is a question for someone else

There is no reason to think it does anything to the measurements, unless you are someone like PDN desperately trying to prove something.

The only reason to suppose that the base was not actually 10 cubits in diameter as it says in the Bible is that this conflicts with the religious position that the Bible is infaliable.

Any "reasonable" observer when looking at this would simply say that the author made a mistake in writing down the measurements. But if you can't say that then of course one will have to find an alternative explanation.

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 03:42PM

PDN wrote: »

Keep on beating your straw man, Wicknight. It only makes you look petty and unreasonable.

You can keep insulting and attacking me all you like PDN, it doesn't change the fact that you are inserting an unfounded assumption into the story that is not present in the text, something you harshly criticise others for doing so when they do it to cast doubt on the stories in your religion such as the resurrection of Jesus.

You did exactly the same thing with the bear story over in A&A, while also getting a few sly insults in at those who raised the story in the first place.

I could retort that it makes you petty and unreasonable, but really it doesn't. It just makes you look like a rather typical "believer" Make of that what you will.

JimiTime · 27-08-2008 04:36PM

What a silly thread. Now who's for Pi.....

Mark Hamill · 27-08-2008 04:50PM

PDN wrote: »

Only a complete fathead expects a non-scientific description of something to conform to an engineer's standards of precision. Therefore we say there are 365 days in a year, that our holiday hotel was 400 yards from the beach, and that Dublin is 100 miles from Belfast.

I don't know about you PDN, but I wouldn't give an exact measurement for something unless I was sure of what it was. In these cases I would say there's 365 days in a year, except for leap years, the holiday hotel is about 400 yards from the beach and Belfast is about 100 miles from Dublin.
The passage in the bible doesn't use "about" or "approximately" or "give or take" 10 cubits, it is exact in its measurements, and while you can keep harping on about how its only to help people visualise what the temple looks like, its obviously going to cause problems for any "fatheads" with even a remote understanding of basic geometry (I think I was first introduce to pi at about 10 years of age), as they will have problems trying to picture something that can't possibly exist.

santing · 27-08-2008 05:53PM

I have been in Pensylvania the last week, so I am just catching up with the posts.

There are perfect explanations of PI in the Bible. We should first understand that what the authors wrote down was actual (rounded) measured sizes, not calculated sizes. So if we find a problem with PI, we have to look at what was measured.

One such attempt is done at http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm, showing that PI is 3.14 according to the Bible. Well that is pretty accurate to me!

Mark Hamill · 27-08-2008 06:09PM

santing wrote: »

One such attempt is done at http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm, showing that PI is 3.14 according to the Bible. Well that is pretty accurate to me!

The basic premise of this link is that the piece in the bible describes the diameter of the bowl from edge to edge, (the "10 cubits" bit), while describing the inner circumference (the "30 cubits") and once you take into account the thickness of the bowl ("one handbreath"), the maths show that pi is 3.1415...etc. Unfortunately for the guy who wrote the link, the quote in the bible quite clearly says:

1 Kings 7 wrote:

23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [o] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [p] to measure around it.

i.e., that the circumference given is the outer circumference, not the inner, thus making his maths pointless.

wolfsbane · 27-08-2008 06:52PM

vibe666 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The Flood would be the big example.
and by far my favourite example.

so he asks tells noah to build a big boat and bring two of everything because he's going to flood the world and kill everyone because he doesn't like the way things are going (you'd think he'd have known from the start, being our all knowing, all singing & dancing creator but meh)

He did know, long before the start.

kind of like gods own etch-a-sketch. sure, bring your kids but apart from that only animals etc.

I'll totally ignore the fact that it is not physically possible to biuld a boat of that size and not have it collapse entirely under it's own weight in the water

Nonsense, as this points out:
These so-called experts are ignorant of the historically documented huge wooden vessels of antiquity. They are also reminiscent of the 19th century scientists who claimed that heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible. But just because Victorian shipbuilders might have had trouble building huge ships, it doesn’t mean that they were impossible. Other experts claim the opposite to Bowen’s hand-picked ‘expert’, concluding that if the wood were only 30 cm thick, it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 m. Compare this with a tsunami (‘tidal wave’), which is typically only about 10 m high. Note also that there is even less danger from tsunamis, because they are dangerous only near the shore—out at sea, they are hardly noticeable. See Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway.

Also, the Ark could have been strengthened even further if they didn’t use the plank-to-frame method. For example, they could have used a monocoque (French for ‘single shell’) technique—i.e. where the strength is in the shell itself rather than the frame. Also, adjoining planks could have been strengthened with mortice and tenon joints. This is where one piece of wood has fairly thick projections, tenons, that fit into matching sockets drilled into another piece of wood, mortices, forming a very strong joint. This is labour-intensive, so later ship-builders largely abandoned it. This would not have been an issue for Noah. A simple alternative would have been to use several layers of logs instead of planks. Finally, Noah could have used tropical hardwoods, far stronger than the materials of Bowen’s ‘expert’, and the ancients had techniques of hardening wood even more.

It’s also important to note that the Ark didn’t need to be compromised for streamlining, because it was designed for floating. Also, the Ark lacked any masts, which made wooden ships vulnerable because of the lever arm they provided for wind. Yet the program portrayed images of building ships like those of Victorian times, with rounded bow and stern and the sides weakened by windows dotted all along. And surprise, surprise, computer modeling showed that such scaled-up ships built on Victorian lines would have collapsed. But as the First Law of Computer Modelling says, ‘garbage in, garbage out’! From: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3104

so, anyway two of every animal (except for anything that can float/swim).

hmm, slight logistical problem there then. for a start, we should be being ruled by ducks or otters by now considering the massive head start in numbers they would have over us, but even overlooking that, what about feeding 2 of every single animal in the world for 6 months?

All the logistics here:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/595

but then we're not really sure how long it lasted are we, even from reading the book? In Gen. 8:6 it says that the flood lasted for forty days, but in Gen. 8:3 it lasted for one hundred and fifty days. now I'm just getting more confused.

That would be 40 days after the events of v5:
5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

The 150 day marked only the beginning of a drop in flood level. From the Flood began until it ended was about 1 year.

even after the waters recede you're left with 2 of everything, that's great repopulate the worldand all that (under our new duck overlords obviously)

If numbers give dominance, bacteria surely are the Overlords? But if intelligence is a factor, man is the boss.

but once all the animals have all had babies and they grow up, who do they shag?

Brothers and sisters for the first generation; cousins the next; etc.

come to think of it, who do noah's grandchildren shag for that matter?

Cousins to start (3 families).

not content with being an accessory to peadophilia god seems to be actively encouraging incest too.

Paedophilia? Where's that?

Incest only became a problem a long time after the Flood. The later moral ban does not apply to animals.

what about the other ivilisations that were around before & after this great flood that consumed the entire world?

neither the egyptians nor mayans make any mention of great floods killing them all and both were around before and after the flood was supposed to have happened. did they make it all up that they happily existed during this supposed flood?

The dating is erroneous. The Egyptians and Mayans were post-flood.

nor is there any geological evidence of any global flooding in the world around that time other than some localised flooding in certain parts of the middle east (specifically, around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers) in the distant past, but rather conspicuously not a thing in isreal. funny that.

On the contrary, for example:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1647/

I'm not one for quoting bible stuff (for obvious reasons) but this one is a doozy and one which I'd love to see wolfsbane (or any other flood-myth believers for that matter) wriggle out of.

Glad to have obliged.

Quote:
However, the most devastating problem facing believers in the flood myth surfaces in Numbers 13:33. Here the Israelites encounter the sons of Anak. The Anakites came from the Nephilim (giants) who, according to Genesis 6:2-4, originated in pre-flood times as a result of the sexual union of male angels (sons of God) and the daughters of men. Therefore the presence in post-flood Canaan of Anakites, the descendants of the Nephilim, would mean that not all who lived on earth, other than Noah and his immediate family, were killed in the flood. This stands as a direct contradiction of Genesis 6:17 where God vows to, . . . bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; every thing that is in the earth shall die. (apart from ducks)

seems like that one is in your own book, oops.

anyone? (before our secret duck overlords come to smite us)

Assuming that the Nephilim are the same kind in both instances, rather than the later being named after the mighty ones from before the Flood (equally plausible), then no lineage is needed - just the same perverse mating of demon and woman. So there's two alternatives to your 'devasting problem'.

wolfsbane · 27-08-2008 07:22PM

Wicknight said:

It is a conclusion you reach after first establishing that God cannot or would not do evil. The fact that, according to you, he allows and facilitates evil to take place calls into question that establishment.

No it doesn't, for it no more makes God guilty than a general would be guilty of helping the enemy by letting them attack a position, the assualt on which will lead them to ultimate defeat.

You can't therefore use the conclusion to justify establishing that he cannot or would not do evil.

The question remains. Is it not evil to facilitate evil to take place?

No, as above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not when the probability is so low.

But that is the point.

The probability isn't actually low when you look at these seemingly random events. We just believe it is low because most people don't understand probability very well, as demonstrated by something like the Birthday Problem

The Birthday Problem has nothing to do with the recurrent high improbables occurring to the same person in response to his prayers. Or maybe you will explain how it does?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We are talking repeated events, not one-offs.
No, you are talking about once offs connected by repeated events. If a person spends their life praying to God the odds are very high that they will be praying at a series of points in their life when conicendences happen. It is natural human pattern matching to assign significance to the fact that they were praying at the moment the coincidence takes place, but when you look at the odds it is far far more unlikely that this would never happen that that it would.

Its like saying "Wow, its really weird that I'm always in a car when I have a car accidence", or "wow, how pecular that I'm always walking when I stand on an upturned plug"

No, its not - praying is not the common factor, but praying for that 'coincidence'. So it's more like only being hit by another car when I drive between 15.03 and 15.05. After the first few times, I think I would forgo the ride.

santing · 27-08-2008 08:39PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The basic premise of this link is that the piece in the bible describes the diameter of the bowl from edge to edge, (the "10 cubits" bit), while describing the inner circumference (the "30 cubits") and once you take into account the thickness of the bowl ("one handbreath"), the maths show that pi is 3.1415...etc. Unfortunately for the guy who wrote the link, the quote in the bible quite clearly says:

i.e., that the circumference given is the outer circumference, not the inner, thus making his maths pointless.

You may have a point there, but you forget that the upper rim was curved outwards, and the measurement most likely was taken from under the rim.

1Ki 7:26 BBE It was as thick as a man's open hand, and was curved like the edge of a cup, like the flower of a lily: it would take two thousand baths.

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 09:42PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

No it doesn't, for it no more makes God guilty than a general would be guilty of helping the enemy by letting them attack a position, the assualt on which will lead them to ultimate defeat.

No idea how that analogy is supposed to fit. A General helping the enemy butch his men would be very guilty, even if afterwards the general tried the enemy for war crimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Birthday Problem has nothing to do with the recurrent high improbables occurring to the same person in response to his prayers. Or maybe you will explain how it does?

You are right, what it has to do with is people not having a clue about probability. You say "recurrent high improbabilities". The point is that you really don't have a clue what the probabilities actually are, and something like the birthday problem demonstrates that human naturally assume that the probability for something is a lot more unlikely that it actually is, we naturally over exaggerate unlikeness of events or coincidences.

So you can say that very unlikely things happen to people who pray, but really that doesn't mean anything since you don't actually know. And time after time when mathematicians actually look at these things (such as the birthday problem) they find that things that humans consider unlikely turn out to be not that unlikely at all.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, its not - praying is not the common factor, but praying for that 'coincidence'.

Yes but if you spend your entire life praying the odds are very likely that at some point, or even multiple points, in your life you will be praying for something that suddenly happens.

This goes back to what I said above, people don't tend to really understand probability that well. For example it is far more likely that you will dream about something that happens the next day at some point in your life than that you won't. Yet when that happens people go "Amazing, what are the odds that I would have a dream about a plane crash and then I would be on a plane that crashed!!"

If you are constantly praying for things it is very likely that at multiple points in your life you will be praying for something that happens. The human brain discards the vast amount of times you were praying for something that didn't happen as insignificant and only remembers the time where you were praying for something that actually happened.

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 09:52PM

Schuhart wrote: »

Is it fair to say that the basis of this argument is that morality is determined by empathy.

No, not a really. The basis of this argument is that morality is determined by humans so it is pointless to try and figure out if one human morality fits some universal "correct" standard because no such standard exists.

Schuhart wrote: »

Unfortunately, Genghis Khan seems to be pretty clearly stating that he feels no such empathy for his enemies, hence he can rejoice in their suffering and the suffering of their relatives. So empathy would not seem to be a reliable source of morality.

I think you are making the mistake of removing God as ultimate authority but still leaving in the concept of ultimate authority and then trying to find some way of figuring out if one's morality matches this ultimate authority. In reality such authority doesn't exist.

I can't say that my morality better matches the "correct" universal morality than Khan's morality, but then I'm not trying to. Such a standard doesn't exist.

My morality is my morality. Khan doesn't agree, but then I don't care. He is hurting people, to me that is wrong, I'm going to stop him. I don't need something external like a God to tell me that yes I am correct, that I have found the correct morality.

Schuhart wrote: »

There is no reason why Genghis Khan should value your life as equal to his own

Of course there is, I say he has to, and if he doesn't and acts out his killing and raping I'll try and stop him and punish him.

He doesn't have to agree, but that is irrelevant.

Schuhart · 27-08-2008 10:05PM

Wicknight wrote: »

No, not a really. The basis of this argument is that morality is determined by humans so it is pointless to try and figure out if one human morality fits some universal "correct" standard because no such standard exists.

Which is pretty much what I said. You'll recall, what I said is there is no reason, from an atheist viewpoint, for saying his outlook was wrong. You, you will recall, seemed to be contesting this.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think you are making the mistake of removing God as ultimate authority but still leaving in the concept of ultimate authority and then trying to find some way of figuring out if one's morality matches this ultimate authority. In reality such authority doesn't exist.

Well, what I'm more saying is that there is a difference between there being an ultimate authority and there being no ultimate authority. I agree with David Hume's point that people who hold that there is an ultimate authority will act differently to those who don't.

Wicknight wrote: »

I can't say that my morality better matches the "correct" universal morality than Khan's morality, but then I'm not trying to. Such a standard doesn't exist.

Indeed, and that's really the point I'm getting at. Take God out of the picture, and there is no longer a basis for saying Genghis Khan is wrong.

Wicknight wrote: »

My morality is my morality. Khan doesn't agree, but then I don't care. He is hurting people, to me that is wrong, I'm going to stop him. I don't need something external like a God to tell me that yes I am correct, that I have found the correct morality.

Of course there is, I say he has to, and if he doesn't and acts out his killing and raping I'll try and stop him and punish him.

He doesn't have to agree, but that is irrelevant.

I agree that your morality is just as capricious as you describe, and that a capricious approach to morality is a feature of atheism.

Now, can you sort of see that you've taken us on an unnecessary detour, all because you wanted to avoid saying that, from an atheist perspective, there is nothing that makes Genghis Khan's love of rape objectively wrong.

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 10:21PM

Schuhart wrote: »

Which is pretty much what I said. You'll recall, what I said is there is no reason, from an atheist viewpoint, for saying his outlook was wrong.

No, there are plenty of reasons. What you are trying to do is hold those reasons up to a universal standard to see if they are correct or not. There is no universal standard, so you can't do this. But that isn't a reason to say there is no reasons.

There is no way of telling if your reasons are "correct" in terms of this universal standard, but that is irrelevant if one doesn't think the universal stand exists in the first place.

Schuhart wrote: »

Well, what I'm more saying is that there is a difference between there being an ultimate authority and there being no ultimate authority.

Yes but you can't remove the ultimate authority and then claim that you lose all ability to tell if something moral or not. You don't at all.

What you lose is the ability to tell if something is moral compared to the ultimate authority, but then that is sort of the point of removing it in the first place.

You can't remove the ultimate authority but keep the test of comparing morals against the ultimate authority. That doesn't make any sense.

Its like asking - You don't believe in God so how do you know if your morals match God's and are therefore correct?

I wouldn't try and match my morals against God because I don't believe in him in the first place, so it is a nonsensical question.

Schuhart wrote: »

Take God out of the picture, and there is no longer a basis for saying Genghis Khan is wrong.

Take God out of the picture and there is no longer a basis for saying Khan is wrong based on God's standard of morality

But then why would you even try and do this if you have removed God from the picture in the first place? By taking God out of the picture you are basically saying that God's standard is imaginary and worthless. Why would you then try and compare Khan's morality to it to see if it matches or not (and say he was wrong if it doesn't)?

You can still say that Khan is wrong, but you use a different standard, in my case I use my own.

Schuhart · 27-08-2008 10:54PM

Wicknight wrote: »

No, there are plenty of reasons. What you are trying to do is hold those reasons up to a universal standard to see if they are correct or not. There is no universal standard, so you can't do this. But that isn't a reason to say there is no reasons.

It most certainly is a reason to say there are no reasons. What you are doing is trying to relabel individual caprice as 'morality', as if you can say 'that thing is called morality and this thing is called morality, so we still have morality' and this will overcome the reality that we are looking at two different things.

Wicknight wrote: »

There is no way of telling if your reasons are "correct" in terms of this universal standard, but that is irrelevant if one doesn't think the universal stand exists in the first place.

But the point, which has been stated several times now, is that the perception of there being a universal standard will have a real effect on how people behave.

That's what, in his own way, PDN is trying to telll you. Take out the god, and what he's telling you is that he would be quite a nasty person if he felt there was no universal standard - and he doesn't want to be a nasty person.

Now, in this situation you can either be sensible and say 'then I reckon religion migiht be quite useful for some people. Certainly atheism has no answer to what PDN says he gets from his faith'. Or you can try to pretend you don't understand what people are saying.

You seem to be taking the second option. I can't see the point of that, I must admit. I don't see what we gain by throwing up a smokescreen.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but you can't remove the ultimate authority and then claim that you lose all ability to tell if something moral or not. You don't at all.

Yes, you absolutely do because you are simply left with individual caprice. Labelling individual caprice as 'morality' doesn't change that, because its just playing with language.

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 11:28PM

Schuhart wrote: »

It most certainly is a reason to say there are no reasons. What you are doing is trying to relabel individual caprice as 'morality', as if you can say 'that thing is called morality and this thing is called morality, so we still have morality' and this will overcome the reality that we are looking at two different things.

Schuhart wrote: »

But the point, which has been stated several times now, is that the perception of there being a universal standard will have a real effect on how people behave.

I'm not questioning that. I have no doubt that some people act a certain way because the feel an authority watching over them.

I'm questioning your apparent insistence that if one removes a universal standard they remove morality. That isn't true. Morality is not dependent on their being a universal standard. People can and do have their own personal morality. Morality is simply how someone ethically assesses a situation.

Schuhart wrote: »

That's what, in his own way, PDN is trying to telll you. Take out the god, and what he's telling you is that he would be quite a nasty person if he felt there was no universal standard - and he doesn't want to be a nasty person.

The fact that PDN is at heart (apparently) a nasty person without the threat of punishment from God is not the issue. That is his problem.

Plenty of people can and do form moral principles without the need to refer to a universal source for guidance. The idea that morality and moral principles ceases to exist once you remove God is simply untrue.

Schuhart wrote: »

Now, in this situation you can either be sensible and say 'then I reckon religion migiht be quite useful for some people. Certainly atheism has no answer to what PDN says he gets from his faith'.

Well I would seriously question what PDN is trying to say if that is in fact what he is saying. If he is saying he doesn't want to be a nasty person but without God as a standard he would be, well, that is just nonsense isn't it. Remove God and he still doesn't want to be a nasty person. How does the concept of God make him not want to be a nasty person? He himself doesn't want to be a nasty person, that is a conclusion he arrived at himself.

Schuhart wrote: »

Yes, you absolutely do because you are simply left with individual caprice. Labelling individual caprice as 'morality' doesn't change that, because its just playing with language.

You aren't left with individual caprice, you are left with individual morality.

My morality might not convince PDN not to be nasty person, or Khan not to rape people. But then God's morality might not either.

A person has to choose what moral system to follow. The belief that a universal moral system exists doesn't magical make everyone follow it. They follow it if they agree with it, and that demonstrates that they have their own moral compass already established. Remove the concept of the universal morality and their own personal moral compass remains.

PDN knows that he does not want to be a nasty person. Remove God and he still would know he does not want to be a nasty person.

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 11:34PM

Perhaps we are coming at this from very different starting positions.

Do you believe that the term "morality" implies a universal standard by definition?

vibe666 · 27-08-2008 11:54PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

...<ONE GREAT BIG SNIP>...

you know wolfsbane, I was going to go into a long drawn out reply, but then I followed your links to creationontheweb and i'm just laughing too hard to even bother with it.

is that website actually supposed to be serious?

no really. I just read quite a bit of it and it's one of the most ridiculous piles of garbage I've read in a very long time (and believe me, I've read through some crap in my time). it is ridiculous to the point of total absurdity. i'm sorry for mocking you, but you can't possibly have expected to be taken seriously by posting links to such ridiculous garbage could you?

seriously it makes Dan Brown's EARLY work seem believable by comparison. I really do truly feel sorry for you if you are that gullible. really I do.

After reading that, I don't think there's anything I can say on this thread and feel like I can change anything. you've singlehandedly totally and utterly blown the whole idea of christianity and creationism out of the water by posting a couple of links to another website.

I wholeheartedly encourage everyone reading this thread to visit that site and read a couple of pages.

here's a link to the noah's ark thread that wolfsbane posted previously, give it a good read: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3104

even L Ron Hubbard couldn't have done better than that. :rolleyes:

no really, it's one of those joke websites like the onion or something isn't it?

edit:, actually there is one thing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Paedophilia? Where's that?

as I said before, all over the world all the time.

if your god exists and is all powerful then he has the power to stop children (ALL children) from being sexually abused. he sees it happening, he has the power to stop it and he does nothing. that is no different than you standing in a room watching and doing nothing whilst someone abuses your child (aren't we all gods children after all?).

there is NEVER EVER EVER any excuse (divine or otherwise) for anyone to ever subject an innocent child (abnd they are all innocent) to such things and anyone who thinks any different should be strung up and flogged.

and don't even think about starting off on that adams sin bullcrap again, it just doesn't cut it.

oh, and incest is never okay, morally or genetically, even if you are trying to repopulate the world, it just wouldn't work.

you should spend a bit of time out in the deep south of the US and see what happens when cousins marry (repeatedly).

What are the odds?

Comments