</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by worthatry:
<strong> Hi weave - and I bet you also conclude that folks like me can do a pretty good job of knowing right from wrong despite having different "pedigrees" than you or others.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">ok, heathenboy! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by weaver:
<strong>

What those universal truths are, well one would be "we reap what we sow" another would be "for every action there is a reaction", because we are all universally connected.

weaver </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I am connected via cable internet! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Oh Mel, and for that I do thank the Lord.

When I said MB was imbalanced without you, what I meant was we were one Texan short of a full deck.

No kidding, the rest of the Texans on here couldn't even hold up an argument! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Oh too funny! They did try for a time though, and then I think they just conceded!

You know the word "conceded" don't ya!!!

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

But I guess this is a topic for a different thread, isn't it.

"Conceded??" Is that some strange yooper word?? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But that is just your opinion. You have already said that standards are relative so you can't say that murder is wrong and stealing is right. It is just your opinion against mine since you have no absolute standards.
If standards are relative, as you claim, then I say that murder is justified. And who are you to disagree with me since there are no absolute standards?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Melody:

That universal code you refer------ the so-called absolute standard is merely the opinion of the collective. This is a compendium of the individual opinions of folks like you and me. It may be helpful to call it an absolute point of reference, but in reality it is not.

To have absolute morality we would need a perfect entity such as God to guide us------ I have no problem with that. I believe in God, however, he refuses to communicate with me directly. Sure we know of the Ten Commandments, BTW the Jews have over 300 commandments. In any event I think that it is impossible to write commandments that will cover every possible action and situation.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
Melody:

That universal code you refer------ the so-called absolute standard is merely the opinion of the collective. This is a compendium of the individual opinions of folks like you and me. It may be helpful to call it an absolute point of reference, but in reality it is not.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Then I ask again, if moral codes are contingent upon man's "opinion" as you say, then who are you to say that my "opinion" that murder is ok is wrong?

I say that Hitler was justified in killing 6 million Jews and that is my opinion. If morals are based on opinion, then you have no grounds with which to object.

See, it was the "collective opinion" of German society that it was allowable to kill Jews. According to the standard you are proposing, they were justified. Do you not see that?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In any event I think that it is impossible to write commandments that will cover every possible action and situation. [/qb]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Isn't that the purpose of the 10 Commandments? I think he expects us to take those 10 moral standards he set down and apply them to the best of our ability. Maybe he felt man was smart enough to do that without having to micromanage a bunch of dimwits?

<small>[ February 04, 2005, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Isn't that the purpose of the 10 Commandments? I think he expects us to take those 10 moral standards he set down and apply them to the best of our ability. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Melody:

Everytime you open your mouth you make my point.

Please read your own statement above. You are clearly advancing the concept that morality is relative. You said "applied them to the best of our ability". It goes without saying that all of us have different abilities and interpret things differently. Your very own words admit the subjectivity of humans as they judge what is moral or immoral.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Isn't that the purpose of the 10 Commandments? I think he expects us to take those 10 moral standards he set down and apply them to the best of our ability. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Melody:

Everytime you open your mouth you make my point.

Please read your own statement above. You are clearly advancing the concept that morality is relative. You said "applied them to the best of our ability". It goes without saying that all of us have different abilities and interpret things differently. Your very own words admit the subjectivity of humans as they judge what is moral or immoral. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But Stanley, the issue is not the subjectivity of HUMANS, but of MORAL STANDARDS. Of course humans have to use their judgement to apply morals to situations, that does not mean that the moral changes. The moral stays static.

Except in your opinion. And you continue to sidestep my question so I will ask again:


.......... if moral codes are contingent upon man's "opinion" as you say, then who are you to say that my "opinion" that murder is ok is wrong?

I say that Hitler was justified in killing 6 million Jews and that is my opinion. If morals are based on opinion, then you have no grounds with which to object.

See, it was the "collective opinion" of German society that it was allowable to kill Jews. According to the standard you are proposing, they were justified. Do you not see that?

"Conceded??" Is that some strange yooper word?? [Big Grin]

Oh you hold that "yooper status" above my head, the status that nobody in their right mind would want to hold...

And still I hold myself above, shaking the snow off of my heavely treaded clodhoppy boots, taking the beer can and pint of peppermints shnapps out of the oversized pockets of my cloddhoppy parka....and spit in your eye! Cuz I am "yooper" and dang proud of it.

Although if it wasn't for the joint-custody court order which keeps me here I would be hightailing it down to San Antonio like my very smart bro! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Oh whatever... kiss my grits Mel!

Stanley, go easy on her...all that sunshine has made her soft you know. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by weaver:
<strong> Cuz I am "yooper" and dang proud of it.

. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Don't hate me because I'm a troll! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

Bob,

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> In every offered case I have read, the 'missng links' are either absent or have no reason for sustaining the as yet useless mutation.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The concept of “sustaining the as yet useless mutation” is not applicable. Except in very small populations, where a useless but not harmful mutation could become more common by chance, a “useless” mutation would almost always remain an anomaly. Typically the mutations are small but do have a selective advantage – as described in “The Beak of the Finch.”

If someone were to find a complete skeleton of a dinosaur, missing not a single bone, in their backyard, it would be an unusual occurrence, and most likely investigated as a possible hoax. It would be even more unlikely to find a complete fossil record of the ancestors of any particular species.

It is not the case that we do not know of any species that has clearly evolved. Although it is not always simple to distinguish two species versus two sub-species, many scientists consider the Eastern Coyote to be well on its way to becoming a separate species from the Western Coyote, in a matter of a single century, not thousands or even millions of years. http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/coyote/coyote.htm

MelodyLane,

It is obvious that the point of the criticism expressed in this statement:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> The above definition was pulled from a religious website that also makes the preposterous implication (read further down) that, if one accepts modern scientific findings (Evolution in particular), then you must also believe that:

“Therefore, anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't matter”

Such a website is utter rubbish.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">was not that the site was religious, but that the site included a preposterous statement which called into serious question the quality of the site as a whole.

ML--So your opposition to the Holocaust is nothing more than your subjective personal opinion?

D—Ultimately, yes.

ML--Your word against Hitler's and neither "opinion" is more legitimate than the other?

D—I want to be very careful with my words here, because this is a serious topic. If we limit what is meant be ‘legitimacy’ to what can be objectively concluded, then no, my moral opinion holds no more legitimacy than anyone else’s.

ML--Then you must feel that the Allies were unjust in prosecuting the Nazi's because, according to moral relativism, they had no grounds to condemn them because they could not justifiably transcend German secular law.

D—MR would not necessarily conclude this. Again, it does not answer the question as to what is allowed behavior; this is something that you are tacking on to MR. Just because I may not believe nor be able to demonstrate that a particular action is morally incorrect in an objective or absolute sense, does not mean that some actions will not offend my personal moral code, and that I will not believe that punishment is in order. The Nazis horribly offended my personal moral code, and therefore I would certainly support their persecution.

ML--Therefore, the Germans had every right to their own brand of morality that said it is ok to murder Jewish "subhumans."

D—This conclusion is your own—not stipulated by MR nor I.

ML--Nor could you say that the Nazis were wrong unless you know what is absolutely right and you admit that you don't know. Is this what you are saying?

D—I cannot demonstrate that the actions of the Nazis were objectively “wrong”. Nor, do I believe, can anyone (but I would be very happy to be proven wrong). It does not then follow that their actions were necessarily acceptable to my personal (subjective) moral code.

An analogy: I do not believe that there is an objective list of the ten ‘best’ music songs in the world. I do not believe that my list is objectively superior to my neighbor’s list. Does this then mean that I have no preference with regard to music and would listen to anything? Of course not.

Bob:

""there is nothing more exciting or awe-inspiring to me than studying evolutionary biology."

Nor as religious."

I might have used the term "inspiring."

"Evolution as procreative tool is as poorly evidenced as ANY theological creation proposal."

Completely untrue. "Theological creation", if you mean "creation science" is not even scientific, much less objective.

"It Requires just a smuch 'faith' to fill in the gaps as any creation theory. Witness for example the abject lack of any recorded occurrence of sustained phenotypic mutation actually creating a new, uniquely survivable species,adapted to local environs. Mutation/evolution certainly occurs INTRA species, witness Galapagos, but there is zero evidence to support it as a "net" creation process. Just faith."

Archaeopteryx. All birds until the end of the Cretaceous had teeth.

Coelocanth. Lobe-finned fishes evolved in2 amphibians. (they were also fairly successful themselves, since the coelocanth is still around 2day, after 400 million years.

"In every offered case I have read, the 'missng links' are either absent or have no reason for sustaining the as yet useless mutation."

Certainly "useless mutations" don't take for long. Missing links, though? The above, and 5-toed horses, 3-toed horses, and hooved horses. Whales with vestigial hind limbs within their bodies. Your appendix.

"And I have yet to read ANY treatise that can explain away the almost universal presence of counter-evolutionary moral instincts within Man."

Why explain them away at all? If man really HAS "moral instincts" as you call them, a scientist would endeavor 2 explain them, not ignore them. Carl Sagan's "Dragons of Eden" is about the evolution of intelligence.

"Wow this is good !"

It's okay.

-ol' 2long

I've just asked on I-ville where do I go to pick up my degree for following this post. I've attended all the lectures, I've completed all the coursework.

I can't even pretend that I've followed half this but all your intelligence (both sides of the argument) is awe inspiring.

Do you people know how intelligent you are??

I mean that seriously.

Jen

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by dimpsasawa:
[QB]"D—MR would not necessarily conclude this. Again, it does not answer the question as to what is allowed behavior; this is something that you are tacking on to MR. Just because I may not believe nor be able to demonstrate that a particular action is morally incorrect in an objective or absolute sense, does not mean that some actions will not offend my personal moral code, and that I will not believe that punishment is in order. The Nazis horribly offended my personal moral code, and therefore I would certainly support their persecution."</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But how you can you support their persecution when they have done nothing wrong? By your standard, which is no more than a personal preference such as "I like vanillla and you like chocolate," they have done nothing wrong because killing Jews was rightful according to their own personal moral code.

Remember, the definition of moral relativism is:

It not only holds that ethical judgments emerge from social customs and personal preferences, but also that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth

You, therefore, have no grounds to condemn them because their moral code is no different from yours. They were simply practicing thier OWN moral code which is no less, or more, legitimate than yours. As you agreed, morals are simply a matter of personal preference, they are ALL morally equivalent. Aren't the Nazi's entitled to the same standard that you demand for yourself?

Another portion of the definition of moral relativism:

Some would even suggest that one person's ethical judgments or acts cannot be judged by another, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.

If all morals are not transcendent and simply emerge from one's personal preferences, then that would make moral judgements impossible. It would be impossible to say anything is wrong since there is no absolute standard of right. Judgement would be out of the question as it would be logically indefensible from a relativist standpoint.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by KiwiJ.:
<strong>

I can't even pretend that I've followed half this but all your intelligence (both sides of the argument) is awe inspiring.

Do you people know how intelligent you are??

I mean that seriously.

Jen </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Just not intelligent enough to win the lottery!! HINT, HINT!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

[thank you, Jen, you're a doll!}

Mel, you said something so important and put it simply:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">need transcends morals</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I find myself arguing with myself over this statement! Very, very profound.

ol2 said:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Completely untrue. "Theological creation", if you mean "creation science" is not even scientific, much less objective...Archaeopteryx. All birds until the end of the Cretaceous had teeth...Coelocanth. Lobe-finned fishes evolved in2 amphibians. (they were also fairly successful themselves, since the coelocanth is still around 2day, after 400 million years...5-toed horses, 3-toed horses, and hooved horses. Whales with vestigial hind limbs within their bodies. Your appendix...Why explain them away at all? If man really HAS "moral instincts" as you call them, a scientist would endeavor 2 explain them, not ignore them.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Maybe the ultimate questions, then are the "basics" which aren't basic in any sense of the word: Why, when, and how? This is the "basic" distinction from viewpoints: we as the human race go back "only" to a certain point i time, but can't go back any further. The rest is "just" theory. So, do we theorize in a supernatural "being" created "all" of this, or, do we keep attempting to keep going back and have "faith" in a "logical" explanation? Science is basically a relidion itself. They just don't "worship" a particular "being." They worship "being."

WAT said (BTW, welcome back!):
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Pain doesn't feel good! Nobody had to tell me it was bad. Maybe some twisted brains enjoy pain - not mine nor most others'. So, I won't buy into arbitrarily learning that bad is good or good is bad. I believe our reasoning/learning abilities and ability for conscious thinking somehow sorts out what's good/bad - along with our upbringing and exposure to societal norms and laws, etc. I expect the basis of my parents' teachings were not dissimilar from mine, nor yours or anyone else's here.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"Here," I am assuming--please correct me if I'm not on the right track--is in a "modern" society. Our learning abilities, again, in our society, do not differntiate this--regardless, as you correctly insinuated, of religious or non-religious beliefs. BUT, there are some "twisted" societies in the world that DO accept pain, and, not necessarily "like" it, but is a part of their society. Even our own society--the most basic of pain--childbirth. It may be an extreme exampple and somewhat off track, but, the point being, the learned behaviour goes with wheter that particular society believes if it is bad or good. My question was, I suppose, what I ultimately said in response to ol2: where does it begin, though? What's its basis? IMO, there really is no answer--the reason why I think you or ol2 or Mel all have morals and are highly regarded. To that extent, it doesn't matter a belief--just where "it"/the moral compass came from.

My Dad did do a swell job teaching me to sail, though.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">...no point of reference or basis or "baseline" moral starting point exists to gauge or measure against...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make--it doesn't make a bit of difference where we are *NOW*--the difference is *HOW* we got to the point where we are now.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Why can't my baseline be just as good as any "authoritarian" established baseline?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">IMO, the answer is it can be--for you. (And I know that this is really what started this thread--you were insulted, so to speak, for the transference, if you will, of beliefs, or appearance that FH mentioned "God." I'm really not sure at this point what the exact quote was anymore!)
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In many cases - as can be plainly seen by the number of "Christian" WSs we see on this board - mine's a fair sight better, hmmmmm? If a person with a moral code the basis of which is gold plated Christian, Islam, whatever - chooses to be a WS - what good has it done?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Good question. But I'm pretty sure the percentage of WS's in Christians is the same as it is for Islams as it is the same for Jews as it is the same for atheists as it is the same for agnostics and on. There are just far less fewer atheists that we hear of infidelity from just there are just far fewer atheists. So, to say that your moral code is "better is quite pretentious and condescending--unless it was just the WAT humour that I'm missing. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

It comes down to not what's better--bottom line is, what works for you. What will make you ultimately a better person. Ultimately, a Christian should be reminding himself, "Thou shalt not judge..." And the Agnostic, "Thou shalt think about it logically and say, 'Nah--NO WAY!'" And the atheist, "Thou shalt not think about it at all!" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: LINY ]</small>

2long said
Archaeopteryx. All birds until the end of the Cretaceous had teeth

The amazingly complex structure of feathers needed to be in place along with huge breast muscles, plus anchoring points, plus the uniquely hollow bone structure that makes feathered flight possible (membrane mammalian and reptilian fliers are of a completely different aerology).

How did evolution sustain these increasingly useless and indeed ( if not flight-enabling) burdensome mutations to the point where feather-controlled flight was possible , and so they became useful at last ? The huge and specific physical developments required for flight would almost certainly be an active BURDEN right up until the point where flight facilitates improved predator avoidance and foraging.

It is SUCH that requires HUGE acts of faith of evolutionists at least the equal of any creation theory IMO.

I am not sure how everything came to be, but i DO know that Evoluution and quantum physics alone do not scratch my itch. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

I was an evolutionist until my mid twenties by the way. I became uncomfortable with the narrow minded faith required to fill the huge gaps in logic required to make the theory of evolution become the theory of all life.

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: b0b pure* ]</small>

Liny - love your signature quote BTW...