Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[KichigaiNeko]

bored now discipi

[Chas]

No.

Interesting....

So you are telling me that no matter how health conscious you are, the health nut who exercises seven days a week and the lazy cheese puff eating obese gluttonous man will both die....

The health nut may live longer than the glutton, and the glutton may live longer than the health nut...

But they both die and are not judged for how they have treated their bodies and how they have treated others...

Is this what you are telling me?

---

No, it's memetic evolution. And convergent evolution is evident in the large agreement of basic moral judgements across diverse cultures.

And these convergent ideas may or may not be objective morality.

Interesting....in fact...you agree with Lewis then on your observation regarding the fact that there is large agreement of basic moral judgements across diverse cultures.

You then stop and say this is not cultural relativism.

But common consensus morality is simply might makes right, then you are left with cultural relativism. There is no escape.

For you must indeed be aware...that societies are simply collections of individuals at base. Many societies may agree as a whole that it is better to outlaw abortion and homosexuality.

You may have other societies that disagree, but if the former societies are strong enough to exert their influence over others and render any opposition to their legislation void, then the former societies are in the majority. They can even invade those societies they believe to be acting bad and evil and chastise them and try to persuade them to adopt their morality.

The Allies did this to the Axis powers in WW2.

Cultural relativism is a resulting view of the fact that cultures evolve. It is only one of the ways to view cultural differences, it is not a complete position in and of itself. It puts the emphasis in the wrong place, allowing the kind of interpretation that absolves people of responsibility.

[discipulus]

Interesting....

So you are telling me that no matter how health conscious you are, the health nut who exercises seven days a week and the lazy cheese puff eating obese gluttonous man will both die....

The health nut may live longer than the glutton, and the glutton may live longer than the health nut...

But they both die and are not judged for how they have treated their bodies and how they have treated others...

Is this what you are telling me?

---

Interesting....in fact...you agree with Lewis then on your observation regarding the fact that there is large agreement of basic moral judgements across diverse cultures.

You then stop and say this is not cultural relativism.

But common consensus morality is simply might makes right, then you are left with cultural relativism. There is no escape.

For you must indeed be aware...that societies are simply collections of individuals at base. Many societies may agree as a whole that it is better to outlaw abortion and homosexuality.

You may have other societies that disagree, but if the former societies are strong enough to exert their influence over others and render any opposition to their legislation void, then the former societies are in the majority. They can even invade those societies they believe to be acting bad and evil and chastise them and try to persuade them to adopt their morality.

The Allies did this to the Axis powers in WW2.

Cultural relativism is a resulting view of the fact that cultures evolve. It is only one of the ways to view cultural differences, it is not a complete position in and of itself. It puts the emphasis in the wrong place, allowing the kind of interpretation that absolves people of responsibility.

In your personal understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection, does the process take into account anything else in addition to that which aids in the survival of a species, or is selecting those traits which aid in the survival of a species the only thing the process deals with?

[pocaracas]

Evolution by natural selection is more about what doesn't work...what doesn't get passed to the next generation.
If an individual dies before passing on its genes, then any individual genetic improvement it may possess is lost. Only those who do manage to reproduce carry on.

[discipulus]

Evolution by natural selection is more about what doesn't work...what doesn't get passed to the next generation.
If an individual dies before passing on its genes, then any individual genetic improvement it may possess is lost. Only those who do manage to reproduce carry on.

Ok so you would say that when we interpret an act to be good, what we actually are saying is that it aids in survival, and an act that is bad is one that does not aid in survival.

Is that how it works?

[pocaracas]

In the case of humans, which have been banding in groups since before the homo genus arose, it is the survival of the group that's at stake. Not the individual.

[genkaus]

Interesting....

So you are telling me that no matter how health conscious you are, the health nut who exercises seven days a week and the lazy cheese puff eating obese gluttonous man will both die....

The health nut may live longer than the glutton, and the glutton may live longer than the health nut...

But they both die and are not judged for how they have treated their bodies and how they have treated others...

Is this what you are telling me?

Yes, and I'm also telling you that the time and manner of their death - and their life before that - is the "judgment".

But common consensus morality is simply might makes right, then you are left with cultural relativism. There is no escape.

For you must indeed be aware...that societies are simply collections of individuals at base. Many societies may agree as a whole that it is better to outlaw abortion and homosexuality.

You may have other societies that disagree, but if the former societies are strong enough to exert their influence over others and render any opposition to their legislation void, then the former societies are in the majority. They can even invade those societies they believe to be acting bad and evil and chastise them and try to persuade them to adopt their morality.

Is that how international standards of measurement enforced? "Your society divides the day in 30 hours, so we are going to invade you and force you to accept the 24-hr a day standard".

[Sword of Christ]

Do you allow yourself the possibility that you are wrong?

Do you?

[Darwinian]

Do you allow yourself the possibility that you are wrong?

Do you?

Of course he does, he's an atheist!

[Sword of Christ]

Of course he does, he's an atheist!

I don't think he would be if he felt any real doubt, you wouldn't want to be wrong about this one.