Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

Chat about anything
User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5416
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » March 11th, 2014, 5:31 pm

12'sTheLimit wrote:Ken Ham answers this in the debate himself with his illustration of a world made by evolution has no definite right or wrong and there is no reason for anything. Whereas a world made by God has God's rules and a reason for each and every thing. And if there is no God there is no reason to do what he want so you can do what you want. That is why the theory of evolution was invented so its maker and follower would not have to answer to God. And this is why we should debate it because it is a matter of life and death - If there is no God there is no Heaven and there is no Hell. When you die that is it. If there is a God you must believe in Heaven and also in Hell and if you are not saved your destination is the later and there is but one way to escape it and that is to be saved through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I understand what you mean, I've always accepted the world is convoluted and every persons right is another persons wrong. There is many religions that accept the belief in an afterlife without a particular demiurge, and likely vice versa. But regardless, everyone is subject to their own beliefs :)

I have leant away from my religious upbringing in the past few years, but I still highly respect the dedication, devout passion, strong morals on many issues and general charitable outreaches of many churches. Particularly in my area, Catholic and Baptist are the major contributors to the charities. So, I don't mean any disrespect in not seeing the exact utility of the debate - but I don't have anything bad to say about either belief sets :)
Image

User avatar
Rabbidfan236
Well-Known Member
Posts: 1084
Joined: February 28th, 2013, 9:55 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby Rabbidfan236 » March 11th, 2014, 5:45 pm

12'sTheLimit wrote:Ken Ham answers this in the debate himself with his illustration of a world made by evolution has no definite right or wrong and there is no reason for anything.


I hear this argument all the time and I hate it. Just because you don't believe in a god doesn't mean you can't have morals. In fact, I would feel better living in a world where everyone does the right thing unconditionally, and not just because some magical being in the sky will punish them if they don't.

User avatar
Sebastian Lawe
Moderator
Posts: 2533
Joined: October 17th, 2012, 7:58 am
Design Competitions Voted: 0
Contact:

Postby Sebastian Lawe » March 11th, 2014, 11:50 pm

One thing I must add. Morals are a superficial concept that humans shape and mold for themselves based on circumstance, and society. Morals are inconsistent, and change from person to person. The main thing that drives humans to have "morals" is one core concept. Fear of consequence. We run mainly on Euphoria though (something that feels nice). Humans are inherently selfish, no matter what we do. Life is give and take. If I make a person feel good by giving something of mine away, I make myself feel good. The reward of feeling good was far greater than what I gave in comparison, and was therefore still a selfish act. See, I don't really see selfishness as a bad thing though. It depends on its outcome. If your selfishness benefits others, its acceptable. If it does the opposite, it shouldn't be. If your selfishness is neutral, then its acceptable. Running a business requires some selfishness. You wan't to beat the other companies in "XYZ" and that pushes you and your coworkers to build a better product. Gaining things gives a euphoric response (be it an achievement, item, food). The more spaced out those euphoric responses are though, the better they feel. The way they are earned also plays a factor. Euphoria loses its power if the same method is used over an over to enact it. Eg: you get every toy you ask for. I like programming because it make my brain feel good, I eat because it feels good, I help others because it feels good. Anything I do, I do because it makes me feel good. Not because its right or wrong. Hurting others doesn't give me a euphoric response, so I don't do it. However, there are others who do get a euphoric response out of that. There are also actions I don't do simply because the consequences would mean losing certain bits of euphoria. Now, what about psycopaths/sociopaths? They can understand the existence of morals, but can easily disregard them without regret. Their brains don't provide the same euphoric signals, or responses to fear.

For me, I don't really operate on "good" or "bad", because the definitions are different between cultures, and religions. I just do what I feel is right. If I feel good about a choice I make, then I feel that is good enough. If the consequences aren't worth the euphoria, or a choice doesn't provide euphoria, its less likely to happen. Even if we work a crummy job, its for the euphoria of potential food and water, and to prevent our bodies from punishing us with hunger.

User avatar
Miniike
Well-Known Member
Posts: 10941
Joined: November 1st, 2012, 12:03 pm
Location: my beautiful house with my beautiful wife
Contact:

Postby Miniike » March 12th, 2014, 9:48 am

Rabbidfan236 wrote:I hear this argument all the time and I hate it. Just because you don't believe in a god doesn't mean you can't have morals. In fact, I would feel better living in a world where everyone does the right thing unconditionally, and not just because some magical being in the sky will punish them if they don't.

If morals exist, they must be absolute. If there is no one to define absolutes, there are no morals. The only being with any authority to define morals would be the creator of a universe, because they define everything. No creator = no morals. Period. 100% guaranteed. And even if something "feels" right, it's no good if it isn't absolute.
Furthermore, pretty much everyone wishes we lived in a world where everyone did everything right for no reason. But that's not the world we live in.
Sebastian Lawe wrote:One thing I must add. Morals are a superficial concept that humans shape and mold for themselves based on circumstance, and society. Morals are inconsistent, and change from person to person. The main thing that drives humans to have "morals" is one core concept. Fear of consequence. We run mainly on Euphoria though (something that feels nice). Humans are inherently selfish, no matter what we do. Life is give and take. If I make a person feel good by giving something of mine away, I make myself feel good. The reward of feeling good was far greater than what I gave in comparison, and was therefore still a selfish act. See, I don't really see selfishness as a bad thing though. It depends on its outcome. If your selfishness benefits others, its acceptable. If it does the opposite, it shouldn't be. If your selfishness is neutral, then its acceptable. Running a business requires some selfishness. You wan't to beat the other companies in "XYZ" and that pushes you and your coworkers to build a better product. Gaining things gives a euphoric response (be it an achievement, item, food). The more spaced out those euphoric responses are though, the better they feel. The way they are earned also plays a factor. Euphoria loses its power if the same method is used over an over to enact it. Eg: you get every toy you ask for. I like programming because it make my brain feel good, I eat because it feels good, I help others because it feels good. Anything I do, I do because it makes me feel good. Not because its right or wrong. Hurting others doesn't give me a euphoric response, so I don't do it. However, there are others who do get a euphoric response out of that. There are also actions I don't do simply because the consequences would mean losing certain bits of euphoria. Now, what about psycopaths/sociopaths? They can understand the existence of morals, but can easily disregard them without regret. Their brains don't provide the same euphoric signals, or responses to fear.

For me, I don't really operate on "good" or "bad", because the definitions are different between cultures, and religions. I just do what I feel is right. If I feel good about a choice I make, then I feel that is good enough. If the consequences aren't worth the euphoria, or a choice doesn't provide euphoria, its less likely to happen. Even if we work a crummy job, its for the euphoria of potential food and water, and to prevent our bodies from punishing us with hunger.

This whole post is a denial of absolute truth, which I personally think is one of the strangest things in philosophy. Of course something is absolutely right. We would not exist if there wasn't a "correct" and "incorrect". Just because we can never know for sure what absolutes are and nobody wants to admit they are wrong doesn't mean that we can deny their existence. Absolutes have to exist. We wouldn't be hear talking about it if they didn't.
:pigflag: for fricking fricks sake why do i still care :pigflag:
:lock: 1. Wild Life 2. China Pig 3. The Blimp (Mousetrapreplica) 4. Sugar N' Spikes 5. Ant Man Bee :lock:
:bomb: you'll love it, it's a way of life :bomb:

User avatar
Sebastian Lawe
Moderator
Posts: 2533
Joined: October 17th, 2012, 7:58 am
Design Competitions Voted: 0
Contact:

Postby Sebastian Lawe » March 12th, 2014, 12:54 pm

Miniike wrote:If morals exist, they must be absolute. If there is no one to define absolutes, there are no morals. The only being with any authority to define morals would be the creator of a universe, because they define everything. No creator = no morals. Period. 100% guaranteed. And even if something "feels" right, it's no good if it isn't absolute.
Furthermore, pretty much everyone wishes we lived in a world where everyone did everything right for no reason. But that's not the world we live in.

This whole post is a denial of absolute truth, which I personally think is one of the strangest things in philosophy. Of course something is absolutely right. We would not exist if there wasn't a "correct" and "incorrect". Just because we can never know for sure what absolutes are and nobody wants to admit they are wrong doesn't mean that we can deny their existence. Absolutes have to exist. We wouldn't be hear talking about it if they didn't.


The main absolute of life, is mathematics. Everything can be run down to a mathematical calculation, and become predictable. That is, if a concept is tangible and measurable. If all things were absolute though, we would all be the same, and we wouldn't have arguments or debates. There would be no differing opinions if things were absolute.

Morals, if they must be defined by one person to exist, then morals don't exist.

Culture A believes in a god named Gabe.
Culture B Believes in a god named Rachel.

Culture A says blue is a bad colour, and red is the supreme colour, because Gabe said so.
Culture B says blue is the supreme colour, and red is bad, because Rachel said so.

Which culture is correct? They say that that their beliefs are the one and only correct ones, and their opinions differ on which God created them.

Just because you're raised into a religion, doesn't make that religion the one and only. There are many other religions, with different morals sets, and their morals are not incorrect, even if they go against yours. Absolutes don't exist for everything. My baby sister hands me my gloves and shoes when I'm about to leave, without having to be told or taught. There are other babies her age that would never do such a thing. Is there an absolute to explain why that is? If the answer is that they are different, then that means not everything is absolute.

User avatar
Miniike
Well-Known Member
Posts: 10941
Joined: November 1st, 2012, 12:03 pm
Location: my beautiful house with my beautiful wife
Contact:

Postby Miniike » March 12th, 2014, 1:08 pm

Sebastian Lawe wrote:The main absolute of life, is mathematics. Everything can be run down to a mathematical calculation, and become predictable. That is, if a concept is tangible and measurable. If all things were absolute though, we would all be the same, and we wouldn't have arguments or debates. There would be no differing opinions if things were absolute.

Morals, if they must be defined by one person to exist, then morals don't exist.

Culture A believes in a god named Gabe.
Culture B Believes in a god named Rachel.

Culture A says blue is a bad colour, and red is the supreme colour, because Gabe said so.
Culture B says blue is the supreme colour, and red is bad, because Rachel said so.

Which culture is correct? They say that that their beliefs are the one and only correct ones, and their opinions differ on which God created them.

Just because you're raised into a religion, doesn't make that religion the one and only. There are many other religions, with different morals sets, and their morals are not incorrect, even if they go against yours. Absolutes don't exist for everything. My baby sister hands me my gloves and shoes when I'm about to leave, without having to be told or taught. There are other babies her age that would never do such a thing. Is there an absolute to explain why that is? If the answer is that they are different, then that means not everything is absolute.

I wasn't advocating a certain point of view, I was saying that ultimately there is something that is correct. Opinions will always vary, but a WORLDVIEW and an OPINION are complete different. No one can prove religion, the orgin of life, or the nature of morals. But that doesn't mean truth doesn't exist. You can't deny absolute truth just because one particular view can not be proven. I'm not sure if you intended it, but your last post seemed to advocate the strange notion of pluralism.
And yes, morals DO need to be defined. If there is no creator, no one has any right to say what is right and wrong. An evolutionist worldview, by nature, is amoral. Opinions are not morals because morals are beyond our grasp. But that doesn't mean they don't exist or are subjective.
:pigflag: for fricking fricks sake why do i still care :pigflag:
:lock: 1. Wild Life 2. China Pig 3. The Blimp (Mousetrapreplica) 4. Sugar N' Spikes 5. Ant Man Bee :lock:
:bomb: you'll love it, it's a way of life :bomb:

User avatar
ThatOneFox
Moderator
Posts: 17612
Joined: January 20th, 2013, 5:53 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1
Contact:

Postby ThatOneFox » March 12th, 2014, 1:11 pm

I'm not a christian, as expressed, but I'm not an atheist either. I believe that a god did not create just the earth and the solar system for humans, but rather caused the big bang. I think there is something else in the universe, and a good proof for this is NDE's.
:skull: :bungee: Keith Keiser has a better ass than you :bungee: :skull:

User avatar
Rabbidfan236
Well-Known Member
Posts: 1084
Joined: February 28th, 2013, 9:55 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby Rabbidfan236 » March 12th, 2014, 2:27 pm

Miniike wrote:The only being with any authority to define morals would be the creator of a universe, because they define everything.


mor·al
ˈmôrəl,ˈmär-
noun
plural noun: morals

  1. a lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
    "the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has"
  2. a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
    "the corruption of public morals"

User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5416
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » March 12th, 2014, 3:45 pm

Miniike wrote:If there is no creator, no one has any right to say what is right and wrong. An evolutionist worldview, by nature, is amoral. Opinions are not morals because morals are beyond our grasp. But that doesn't mean they don't exist or are subjective.


Doesn't saying that sort of suggest the those who don't believe in any form of intelligent design have no morals? That, to me at least, sounds a bit off. I would say morality, or one's personal feeling of right from wrong can spawn from compassion for those you love or respect for others dedication in creating the complex systems of society. Am I misunderstanding what you mean?
Image

User avatar
ElectroYoshi
Well-Known Member
Posts: 11061
Joined: October 18th, 2012, 8:27 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Postby ElectroYoshi » March 12th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Miniike wrote:This whole post is a denial of absolute truth, which I personally think is one of the strangest things in philosophy. Of course something is absolutely right. We would not exist if there wasn't a "correct" and "incorrect". Just because we can never know for sure what absolutes are and nobody wants to admit they are wrong doesn't mean that we can deny their existence. Absolutes have to exist. We wouldn't be hear talking about it if they didn't.


Absolutes do exist, but they've actually been proven. Newton's three laws of motion are absolute. The Pythagorean Theorem is absolute.

Morals are not absolute. There is simply too much uncertainty surrounding them. Back at the beginning of this school year, my World History teacher devoted a whole class period to talking about how you can never truly know exactly what happened all those years ago because of all the people that recorded what happened and saw it differently from others. For example, it's generally accepted that 5 people died at the Boston Massacre, but some historian could've incorrectly reported that there were only 3 deaths because that was all he saw.

It's the same general thing with morals. There are too way many different perspectives from way too many different people for there to be a genuine right or wrong answer. Correct me if I misinterpreted your post, but that's my take on it.
I need a shot again, that sweet adrenaline.

User avatar
Miniike
Well-Known Member
Posts: 10941
Joined: November 1st, 2012, 12:03 pm
Location: my beautiful house with my beautiful wife
Contact:

Postby Miniike » March 12th, 2014, 5:12 pm

ElectroYoshi wrote:Absolutes do exist, but they've actually been proven. Newton's three laws of motion are absolute. The Pythagorean Theorem is absolute.

Morals are not absolute. There is simply too much uncertainty surrounding them. Back at the beginning of this school year, my World History teacher devoted a whole class period to talking about how you can never truly know exactly what happened all those years ago because of all the people that recorded what happened and saw it differently from others. For example, it's generally accepted that 5 people died at the Boston Massacre, but some historian could've incorrectly reported that there were only 3 deaths because that was all he saw.

It's the same general thing with morals. There are too way many different perspectives from way too many different people for there to be a genuine right or wrong answer. Correct me if I misinterpreted your post, but that's my take on it.

I don't believe the amount of perspectives changes whether or not absolutes exist. Just because there are many religions with many moral standards doesn't mean they are all wrong (or somehow all right). Truth is out there somewhere, it just can't be proven, which leads to alot of debate. Absolute morals could only ever be proven by a supernatural event, which is why I'm guessing people like to deny their existence.
Phantomboy wrote:Doesn't saying that sort of suggest the those who don't believe in any form of intelligent design have no morals? That, to me at least, sounds a bit off. I would say morality, or one's personal feeling of right from wrong can spawn from compassion for those you love or respect for others dedication in creating the complex systems of society. Am I misunderstanding what you mean?

People who don't believe in creationism can certainly be good people, but they have no right to define absolute morals.

If you created a universe, you would set your own moral standers for that universe. If your creations adopt their own standards, who is wrong, them or you?

If there is no intelligent design, you can certainly be considered "good" by acting how the world says is "good", but I don't think you can say what you do is "right" if there is no right and wrong. I fail to see how ever-changing opinions and cultures somehow constitute actual right and wrong, good rules or otherwise.

Basically, if there is no one being with the right to create right and wrong, it's a free-for-all, which is how an atheist or naturalist would have to view the world. It's a world where you can be "good" without doing what is "right".
:pigflag: for fricking fricks sake why do i still care :pigflag:
:lock: 1. Wild Life 2. China Pig 3. The Blimp (Mousetrapreplica) 4. Sugar N' Spikes 5. Ant Man Bee :lock:
:bomb: you'll love it, it's a way of life :bomb:

User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5416
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » March 12th, 2014, 5:50 pm

Miniike wrote:People who don't believe in creationism can certainly be good people, but they have no right to define absolute morals.

That is true, we are all our own little minds kicking about with our own perceptions of right or wrong - which are both taught and created by our own observations (Which I suppose can also be defined as taught.) I don't think anyone has the right to say, "This is absolute truth and deserves no questioning" In fact, many good theories and conclusions come from not accepting the status quo. So long as you aren't hurting others - I think people should be free to think what they like.

Miniike wrote:If you created a universe, you would set your own moral standers for that universe. If your creations adopt their own standards, who is wrong, them or you?

If there is no intelligent design, you can certainly be considered "good" by acting how the world says is "good", but I don't think you can say what you do is "right" if there is no right and wrong. I fail to see how ever-changing opinions and cultures somehow constitute actual right and wrong, good rules or otherwise.

Basically, if there is no one being with the right to create right and wrong, it's a free-for-all, which is how an atheist or naturalist would have to view the world. It's a world where you can be "good" without doing what is "right".


I am not intending to attack you own personal beliefs, nor the beliefs of anyone else - to me at least, it always just feels wrong saying "which is how they would have to view this" or "this is what they think" What I am saying isn't definitive nor any sort of humanities code, as such I avoid packaging it as such. It just feels wrong to me personally..
Image

User avatar
Miniike
Well-Known Member
Posts: 10941
Joined: November 1st, 2012, 12:03 pm
Location: my beautiful house with my beautiful wife
Contact:

Postby Miniike » March 12th, 2014, 6:03 pm

If we could prove religion, we could say what other people should think.. But we can't, so we can only discuss it. There's a reason most religions forbid forced conversions.
:pigflag: for fricking fricks sake why do i still care :pigflag:
:lock: 1. Wild Life 2. China Pig 3. The Blimp (Mousetrapreplica) 4. Sugar N' Spikes 5. Ant Man Bee :lock:
:bomb: you'll love it, it's a way of life :bomb:

User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5416
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » March 12th, 2014, 6:19 pm

Even with a religious belief proven, it would likely rest on what sort of message that particular religion had said in regards to passing on the practices. Some may say that it is one's duty to teach others, and others may say that it is a personal journey that must be done on their own.

No matter what is proven, I think one's own thoughts are their own right. Humans are, reasonably accepting that our sun exists, but if someone says "I personally, want to believe that it does not." No matter how set we are in our teaching and how absolute we are in our beliefs, there is no reason we should force them to align with our own thoughts. They are free to think whatever they like :)
Image

User avatar
Sebastian Lawe
Moderator
Posts: 2533
Joined: October 17th, 2012, 7:58 am
Design Competitions Voted: 0
Contact:

Postby Sebastian Lawe » March 13th, 2014, 12:09 am

I'm going to lock this thread now. I think its served its purpose.

User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5416
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » March 13th, 2014, 7:05 pm

Please allow me to interject something here to whomever may stumble upon this locked thread, before we allow this thread to close - as I think it will save some trouble later on.

I believe that I can speak for Sebastian when I say he isn't meaning to cut off further discussion on the topic - simply that the topic of this thread, the debate, had been cast to a side supporting detail towards other issues people wished to bring up. So it wasn't that the discussion on this thread isn't serving a purpose, it's that the original topic source had been transcended. So, anyone, feel free to start up another thread if you would like to discuss the topics that were introduced here!

I don't mean to undermine Sebastian's reasoning, I just felt an explanation my clear up some misunderstandings, should they arise :)
Image

User avatar
Sebastian Lawe
Moderator
Posts: 2533
Joined: October 17th, 2012, 7:58 am
Design Competitions Voted: 0
Contact:

Postby Sebastian Lawe » March 16th, 2014, 7:49 pm

Unlocked upon request.

User avatar
Dongus
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: March 18th, 2014, 5:08 pm

Postby Dongus » March 18th, 2014, 6:10 pm

waw, nye sure ATE UP ham

User avatar
Dongus
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: March 18th, 2014, 5:08 pm

Postby Dongus » March 18th, 2014, 6:23 pm

You didn't get the joke? Ham? He ate it?

User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5416
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Postby Phantomboy » March 18th, 2014, 6:25 pm

Dongus wrote:You didn't get the joke? Ham? He ate it?

Yes, I got that :P Anyways, let's stay on topic or let the others talk!

I've sort of said my point of views on the topic - so I've sort of stepped out at this point.
Image


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Registered users: No registered users