And I did look him up and read about him and what I read does not support your assertion.
You have an opportunity to educate me, I suggest you take hold of it.
Refusal to do so will only indicate that you are unable to back up your assertion.
I disagree. The torture of an innocent child is morally wrong in all circumstances. That one memeber of one society may disagree doesn’t negate that fact.
Well, I can see exactly what the problem is now: Your definition is wrong.
The time elapsed between my post and your response suggest your research must have been very superficial indeed. You tube contains a number of recent debates involving John Lennox and Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins and others. In most of these Lennox provides an understanding of why he holds a theistic view.
“Like evolution, creationism can have more than one meaning. At its most basic, creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity of some sort - but after that, there is quite a lot of variety among creationists as to just what they believe and why. Some believe that a god simply started the universe off and then left it alone; others believe in a deity that has been actively involved in the universe since creation. People may lump all creationists together in one group, but it is important to understand where they differ and why.”
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutevolution/tp/ScienceCreationismDesign.htm
What is this “science” you speak of? Most people keft it in high school. They remember that atoms are real small and a mole is something. In biology, things come from cells. DNA is something you leave at a crime scene.
Really? Where do you get that idea that you are ascribing to “naturalism”? There are a number of examples of altruism in the natural world. This seems to be nothing but a definition with which you are comfortable that is not based on anything any serious “naturalist” would proclaim.
Again, that is your opinion. Where is your evidence to support this belief if it is not actually present in all societies throughout the world?
= = =
You seem to have a tendency to throw out your personal beliefs as though they had substance beyond your own mind. I suspect that this is why you are coming across as utterly unpersuasive in your posts.
Considering the fact that only a tiny minority of “leading scientists”(however you wish to define that nebulous term) are Creationists I have this to say: I’m sorry but I have no idea who you are to determine that the vast majority of the leading scientists on the planet are ignorant.
I’m not going to invest hours of my time in researching your arguments. They are your arguments; you need to back them up.
If the evidence that will back them up is available in “most” of these videos, you should be able to provide evidence without much trouble.
Again, the fact that you are not is seemingly indicative of an inabillity to back up your assertion.
tomndebb and others have already given you some helpful corrective feedback on this assertion, but I have a little to add too.
If your position is that torturing children is universally morally prohibited, you’re not starting your argument off very well at all.
If there is some external force that makes the torture of children morally unacceptable, why has the acceptability of the torture of children varied over time and over contexts?
It wasn’t until the 17th century and the emergence of social conscience that our beliefs about children included the idea that they were emotionally sensitive beings who should be afforded individual rights. John Locke helped to usher in a transition from treating children with indifference or harshly.
The fact that we see historical transitions regarding the morality of how children are treated argues for such morality arising from humans rather than being imposed supernaturally.
Additionally, if your point includes the idea that our religions are a conduit for recognizing and interpreting moral prescriptions, then the story of God wiping out Job’s kids or, more intimately, telling Abraham to kill his son, argue against any biblical support for your objective morality regarding the treatment of children.
The torture of children during the inquisition, and even the stereotypical beating of Catholic school children with rulers and other implements also question any sort of religious source for a moral prohibition against the torture of children.
You may have thought you had come up with an example that demonstrated a morality we would all agree with, and it is hard for us, here and now, living in the culture that we do, to contend otherwise. But it isn’t a good example of an unchanging or universal morality.
Care to try again?
No.
The Catholic Church’s position is that God designed the rules of the universe, and those rules included evolution. Humans arose as a planned result of that design, in the same way that a pool shark’s break leaves a seemingly random pattern on the table, but a pattern that he planned.
Nothing about that is inconsistent with evolution.
But if you believe they are, please identify the specific aspects of evolution that you believe are inconsistent with that belief.
I was a little unclear on that , too-thank you.
Do you have a cite/reference for that that is external? I’d like to add that to my bookmarks. (and thanks for the clarification)
I have a great fear of people who believe that their morality has been imposed from outside themselves, instead of being a natural expression of kin-selection and in-group dynamics which lead to better survival. Mostly because the ones who are extrinsically moral might decide that their guide has changed its mind for “wicked” people who need to be drowned, or tribes who are occupying their “Promised Land.”
Self-guided persons might also massacre a neighboring tribe, but at least they will be honest about their reasons.
Here you go. Just a little fuzzier than Bricker makes it out to be, it seems.
THere is a great deal in nature that
a) shows parental units caring for/defending their young (don’t get between a mother elephant/bear and her young)
b) shows parental units eating their young. (I think this is mostly in the fish and in response to an external threat - but also happens after the fry are ‘free swimming’, parents will sometims see them as food as well).
We have a much more developed ‘brain’ with reasoning powers - I don’t see any reason to require a ‘supernatural’ reason when nature shows us the example(s)
You just restated what I said.
Of what value is my life to you right now? Somewhere in Russia 1000 miles from either of us there is a little old lady buying bread and milk. Of what value is her life to you?
Thank you for the clarification, but the existence of a plan is inconsistent with evolution. Evolution is, by definition, an unordered, entirely random phenomenon.
or, atleast, ‘*appears *unordered and entirely random’
That’s an elegant position. Another one is: Santa doesn’t actually bring the presents into the house through the chimney, he psychically directs the parents to buy the toys, gift-wrap them and put them under the tree. That is not inconsistent with the existence of Xmas presents. It’s also not inconsistent with the fact that parents buy the gifts at the store and place them under the tree.