Science in the Details ~ Sam Harris

Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Science in the Details ~ Sam Harris

   President Obama has nominated Francis Collins as the next director of the National Institute of Health. I think that this raises some concern about his nomination,what do you think ?  www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27harris.html

Signature ? How ?


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:   President

Ken G. wrote:

   President Obama has nominated Francis Collins as the next director of the National Institute of Health. I think that this raises some concern about his nomination,what do you think ?  www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27harris.html

Well, Harris and company are blowing smoke, Collins credentials are impeccable in regards to his position, sort of like how Dawkins would be a perfect candidate for position concerning the study and teaching of evolution, even if he holds some dopey beliefs outside of this area himself, such as religion is the root of all evil, and memetics, and the suggestion that "super-niceness" can be spread by a bit of memetic engineering. And lets not forget Harris's own dopiness, that believes suicide bombers are motivated by the sexual fantasy of 72 virgins, or his belief that there is such a thing a thing as scientific morality, an objective moral standard that science will eventually discover. 

I wasn't a fan of Harris summarizing what he felt Collins position are in the end, because I've read Collins, his book, his interviews, his discussion with Dawkins, and I have yet to find an inconsistency in his responses. He holds a view that afford a sense of creativity to creation, this isn't a scientific position, just like Dawkins belief in the "elegance" of evolution isn't a scientific position, they are aesthetic values.  


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
At least he's a scientist.

At least he's a scientist. Grats, you actually have someone more qualified than your Northern neighbour. For once. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Silly_Mommy
BloggerSuperfan
Posts: 79
Joined: 2008-08-10
User is offlineOffline
"Sam Harris and company..."

 ...seem to be rather spot-on. Although I'm willing to cut a bit of slack with Dr. Collins due to the fact that Obama could have nominated someone with worse scientific credentials. That is provided, though, that Dr. Collins actually applies his resume and scientific resume to what is necessary instead of making it a truly religious issue.

 

But naturally I have a soft spot for Sam Harris and what he has to say. I think that is possibly because he was in my dream about a week ago, which was sexy in nature! But that's for a *different* topic. Eye-wink


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
What a stupid

What a stupid article.

 

First did Collin's beliefs interfere with his human genome project? No.

 

Did it interfere with any of his scientific endeavers? If you think so, please cite sources.

 

 

As long as he can do the job, the beliefs are irrelevant.

 

 

I don't think Collins is really deriving anything from religion, I think that he is merely attributing the science he does to religion.

 

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
An excellent, thoughtful,

An excellent, thoughtful, considered article by Sam Harris.

The points Sam raises about areas of science where Collins' beliefs are more likely to conflict seem entirely valid, AFAICS. He is not saying that Collins will be bad for science - he is expressing concern:

Quote:

One can only hope that these convictions will not affect his judgment at the institutes of health.

If Collins is sincere in his beliefs, it would be naive to assert that they will be unlikely to affect his decisions when they conflict most explicitly with the science.

It certainly disturbs me that an intelligent, informed person could stand by the statements Harris lists on the first page as being presented by Collins on a series of slides.

Especially with the statement

Quote:

If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?

believers demonstrate explicitly the delusion and/or ignorance in their position.

Any of us who have lived as Atheists for most or all of our life, along with the various prominent non-believers who have contributed to society over the years, and large numbers of citizens in significant countries in Europe and other highly secular and very civilized nations, are an utterly irrefutable standing demonstration of the mistaken nature of such opinion, that it is Collins' position on the nature and origin of ethics and morality that is the illusion. It is absolutely a fact that it is not a big problem to have a working ethical stance and a well-ordered society in the absence of such religious beliefs, and that highly religious societies are in no way guaranteed to be 'better' in any way than secular ones.

Please note carefully, Pineapple, I am not even trying to assert that secular societies will always be better than religious ones...

What would his attitude be if he had to make a decision on funding one of the growing number of studies that show just how the precursors to our moral thinking emerge in other social animals. Hopefully, and I think Sam Harris shares my view, he would not reject it out of hand, would it be as well supported as we might hope it would be by someone not sharing Collins' world-view?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:......,

BobSpence1 wrote:
......, that it is Collins' position on the nature and origin of ethics and morality that is the illusion. It is absolutely a fact that it is not a big problem to have a working ethical stance and a well-ordered society in the absence of such religious beliefs, and that highly religious societies are in no way guaranteed to be 'better' in any way than secular ones.

 

Morality is an illusion, in any sort of secular conception of it. Most atheist, who don't understand the historical development of moral laws, and concepts, don't get this. Morality has long been held, by a sense of a telos, that man like a designed thing, has a notion of what he "should be". Man taking care of the poor, the sick, and the orphan, loving others, is seen as what man is to be, the purpose he is to live for. 

In secular world, such concepts no longer exist. Man is what he is, if he desires to only care for the here and now, his present family, perhaps even a single generation afterwards, with no concern about the well being of those after these generations, than so be it. If he says fuck making sacrifices to prevent Global warming, if decides to be like Lazarus and shut his door on the dying and poor, than so be it. He is what he is, and any atheist telling him he should live differently, would get a fuck off. 

 

 

 

 


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Yes ! an Illusion

   Albert Einstein once said "Reality is merely an Illusion, albeit a very persistent one "

Signature ? How ?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

theTwelve wrote:

In secular world, such concepts no longer exist. Man is what he is, if he desires to only care for the here and now, his present family, perhaps even a single generation afterwards, with no concern about the well being of those after these generations, than so be it. If he says fuck making sacrifices to prevent Global warming, if decides to be like Lazarus and shut his door on the dying and poor, than so be it. He is what he is, and any atheist telling him he should live differently, would get a fuck off. 

 

 

You absolutely right, that is why societies do not exist, and therefore cannot decide what is right or wrong based off enlightened self interest!

 

Oh wait.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:You

ClockCat wrote:

You absolutely right, that is why societies do not exist, and therefore cannot decide what is right or wrong based off enlightened self interest!

 

What's an illusion is you're belief that all question of "right" and "wrong" are moral question, as if teaching someone the "right" way of going about solving a math problem, is teaching them morals. Corporation make decisions on how to effectively go about making profits, and these decision are made amorally.

 

 

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

theTwelve wrote:
Corporation make decisions on how to effectively go about making profits, and these decision are made amorally.

 

According to who? You?

 

A profit-based corporation's ethical code, which are their morals, puts the stakeholder at the #1 interest. They exist to make money.

 

Only when that is broken are they acting against corporate morals.

 

 

Sorry to burst your divinity bubble.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
moral absolutes

Don't exist they are the illusion, what is morality, more or less practical knowledge really, and what society as a whole dictates as morally correct or incorrect. What at one time was morally acceptable, disciplining your wife by hitting her with a stick is no longer morally acceptable in today's society. All moralities that are due to traditions (religious morality for example is based on religious traditions) undergo changes over time because they are subject to investigation and criticism, some expand, some shrink and others disappear altogether. The changes that society undergo morally speaking are due to many factors such as

Changing in social structure, new factual or metaphysical beliefs, the emergence of a new paradigm and of course inconsistency with new values.

All these can cause changes in moral attitudes of a society, and as such will changes over time. This is something even atheists are subject to, and how they are brought up even in a secular society determines their moral outlook. A compassionate society will produce mainly compassionate people, not everyone will be but the majority will. A warmongering society will produce people that value life outside of their society with very little value if any at all.

Atheists are subject to these as well, and speaking as a life long atheists, coming from a family of atheists, we do care for our neighbors and for our future generations, as well we follow the laws of the land and are subject to changes of societies moral fabric. Where my grandfather it was fine to hate homosexuals (although him and I never discussed it, he wasn't really fond of them from what I could see but had a live and let live attitude about it) in our ever changing society homosexual hatred has become morally unacceptable and by the time my daughter gets to be 16 it will be something she has grown up with and won't be any different for her, as it was for me (personally I have a few homosexual friends and family friends and we get along great) There are many christians that don't give a fuck about the future generation because JESUS IS COMING to take them all to heaven, there are many that say GOD will take care of us we don't need to care of ourselves we pray to god to do it for us. So its more of an attitudes towards the earth, future generations etc, etc, etc that fuel what you states before, not a strict belief in god. Atheists just like christians can be very caring people, and can be very much assholes.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:BobSpence1

theTwelve wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
......, that it is Collins' position on the nature and origin of ethics and morality that is the illusion. It is absolutely a fact that it is not a big problem to have a working ethical stance and a well-ordered society in the absence of such religious beliefs, and that highly religious societies are in no way guaranteed to be 'better' in any way than secular ones.

 

Morality is an illusion, in any sort of secular conception of it. Most atheist, who don't understand the historical development of moral laws, and concepts, don't get this. Morality has long been held, by a sense of a telos, that man like a designed thing, has a notion of what he "should be". Man taking care of the poor, the sick, and the orphan, loving others, is seen as what man is to be, the purpose he is to live for. 

In secular world, such concepts no longer exist. Man is what he is, if he desires to only care for the here and now, his present family, perhaps even a single generation afterwards, with no concern about the well being of those after these generations, than so be it. If he says fuck making sacrifices to prevent Global warming, if decides to be like Lazarus and shut his door on the dying and poor, than so be it. He is what he is, and any atheist telling him he should live differently, would get a fuck off. 

 

Morality, as objective standard of 'right' behavior, is an illusion, of course. The religious conception of it, as obedience to God's laws, is not really a true moral system at all - it is a legalistic requirement of obedience to a set of commandments, more akin to the secular legal system, but inferior to that in the most enlightened (ie, secular) nations, as it has no real appeal system, and the punishments are totally disproportionate to the harm actually caused by the offenses.

Your idea of purpose is totally warped, if it is meant to be THE purpose for existence. Helping others in distress is of course admirable, and it may well serve as a major or entire purpose for someone in a situation to do that for many people. If someone can be helped out of a impoverished situation to the point where they can go on to help others, that is ok, but not everyone is  going to be able to achieve that, especially those with severe physical afflictions.

What then is the 'purpose' for those poor and afflicted themselves? You almost make it sound like their purpose is only to serve as a target for you to exercise your 'good works' and gain your divine brownie points.

Basing one's purpose on trying to achieve what one deeply feels 'should be', can justify great evil as well as great good. Hitler and Mao and Pol Pot and David Koresh almost certainly followed the same principle. Someone basing their actions on such precepts is going to be far less amenable to persuasion that they may be doing something 'wrong', ie harmful to others for no overall benefit, than someone basing their morality on true consideration for others rather than trying to earn Karma points for their own ultimate benefit, and/or please some imaginary overlord.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:First did Collin's

Quote:
First did Collin's beliefs interfere with his human genome project?

Francis Collin didn't have those beliefs when he was working on the HGP.

 

They burst forth from a magical frozen waterfall he stumbled across.  

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
First did Collin's beliefs interfere with his human genome project?

Francis Collin didn't have those beliefs when he was working on the HGP.

 

They burst forth from a magical frozen waterfall he stumbled across.  

HA! HA! HA!


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
First did Collin's beliefs interfere with his human genome project?

Francis Collin didn't have those beliefs when he was working on the HGP.

 

They burst forth from a magical frozen waterfall he stumbled across.  

 

Actually this article:

 

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/07/collins/index.html

 

says he become Christian and age of 27, and he was born in 1950, so he was Christian in 1977 and the HGP was in 1997.

 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Oh, my mistake. When I read

Oh, my mistake. When I read his account it sounded like he'd had it recently.

 

In any case, his (and your) support of 'theistic evolution' is bizarre at best. I mean, the phrase was pretty much coined by Ken Miller, who is a Roman Catholic. You're a deist. Collins is a far-right Christian.

It's totally dishonest of you to pretend to have the same belief set just because it overlaps in the area of including magical deities. 

 

EDIT: Okay; either the publication is wrong, or Collins is bullshitting in his book. He says in the book that he was staunchly atheistic right up until his parents died, and that (as I said) he did not fully convert until he was out for a nature hike and saw a waterfall. This would be well after the HGP (his parents died in, what, '99 or '98?). 

So which is it?

 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
...Actually, according to

...Actually, according to your article, Collins also says that while god is outside the purview of the laws of nature (thus requiring no explanation. Somehow), the deity in question can be found by looking at the areas of the universe that support that idea. Nevermind the obvious bias he is supporting here; what areas are these? Since you agree with him, which areas of the universe can we look at and see are magical, Alison? What do we know of that is not only unexplained right now, in terms of natural law, but that you know can never be explained through natural law and is utterly arbitrary? 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
Kevin R Brown wrote:It's

Kevin R Brown wrote:

It's totally dishonest of you to pretend to have the same belief set just because it overlaps in the area of including magical deities. 

 

I don't recall saying that I have the same beliefs as him

 

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

EDIT: Okay; either the publication is wrong, or Collins is bullshitting in his book. He says in the book that he was staunchly atheistic right up until his parents died, and that (as I said) he did not fully convert until he was out for a nature hike and saw a waterfall. This would be well after the HGP (his parents died in, what, '99 or '98?). 

So which is it?

 

 

 

I never read his book, but if it was in 99 or 98, it still would be within the HGP, since he stepped down in 2008.

 

 

 

 


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:In any

Kevin R Brown wrote:

In any case, his (and your) support of 'theistic evolution' is bizarre at best. I mean, the phrase was pretty much coined by Ken Miller, who is a Roman Catholic. You're a deist. Collins is a far-right Christian.

Tisk tisk tisk, when did collins become a far-right Christian? The last i remember he was quoting theologians such as Paul Tillich, someone far from the "right". 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Well, Harris and

 

Quote:
Well, Harris and company are blowing smoke, Collins credentials are impeccable in regards to his position

Harris's criticisms are perfectly legitimate; yes, Collins has both credentials and successful academic career to be proud of, but he should be ashamed of his religious identity. I mean, did you look at what he wrote on the slides that Harris noted?

Quote:
Slide 1: “Almighty God, who is not limited in space or time, created a universe 13.7 billion years ago with its parameters precisely tuned to allow the development of complexity over long periods of time.”

'Precisely tuned'? Yeah. About as 'precisely tuned' as a prostitute's nose powdering job.

Consider just the scale of our own solar system. Within all of that space, this is one teensy tiny little speck of dirt that has complex life on it. Everywhere else is utterly and completely fatal (pretty much instantly fatal) to complex life.

The universe is a lot of things. It's big. It's chaotic. It's awe-striking. It's beautiful. It's dangerous. 

It is not, in any sense of the word, 'fine tuned'. For fuck's sakes, we're - in a very real way - stellar debris. We're a pleasant accident after a star came apart in a very not-so-fine-tuned way; we're that marvellous accident that occassionally happens when you drop a loaded brush onto a canvas. 

Calling our existence the result of fine-tuning is an affront to what that term means, and is ignorant of all the accidents that did not have such wonderful consequences.

 

Quote:
Slide 2: “God’s plan included the mechanism of evolution to create the marvelous diversity of living things on our planet. Most especially, that creative plan included human beings.”

God must be a pretty shitty planner, then. Complex life didn't evolve for quite some time on Earth, and evolution itself is not a 'marvelous' process (even though it does produce marvelous things). It's a brutal, destructive and painful process. Moreover, if God did plan it out, when did he enact it? Did he magically fill the prebiotic Earth with the carbon compounds that eventually became RNA and later evolved into cellular life? Or did that happen on it's own, and God just magically 'spiked' the process somewhere along the way? Where did God step in?

 

Quote:
Slide 3: “After evolution had prepared a sufficiently advanced ‘house’ (the human brain), God gifted humanity with the knowledge of good and evil (the moral law), with free will, and with an immortal soul.”

Fascinating. So God waited until we were... what? Were we still apes when he magically plopped our grey matter in place? Or did we get to the Homo stage before that happened? 

And, hey... what about all of the other animals that have a sense of altruism? Are they just mimicking us to mock God?

 

This is just too ridiculous. If Collins really does believe that we evolved, this statement is a lie he just tossed out to the evangelicals (because he knows that our brains, like everything else, is an evolved trait - not a magical gift) so he could hear them applaud. If he doesn't, well, that's a much different (and much larger) problem.

Quote:
Slide 4: “We humans used our free will to break the moral law, leading to our estrangement from God. For Christians, Jesus is the solution to that estrangement.”

...And now we get into the troubling stuff.

According to this slide:

 - We're not allowed to disagree with an authority's moral codifications.

 - We're all guilty of any perceived transgression made by an ancestor.

 - Blood sacrifices can somehow magically undo past transgressions.

 - ...Further Christian bunk moral superiority complex rubbish, ad nauseum. 

 

And this is a man we should trust to hold political office? One who believes in the absolution of authoritarian codifications, hereditary guilt and the sanctity of human sacrifices?

Quote:
Slide 5: “If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?”

*Sigh*

I'm having a Kung-Fu Panda moment...

 

It's all been said before, but what we want is not the same as what we sometimes get. Maybe it is all an illusion (I wouldn't characterize it that way, and neither would experts in the field of psychology, but I'll give the doctor the benefit of the doubt). So what? It's a nice illusion, isn't it? Whether it's an illusion that keeps us smiling at each other or whether it's the cosmic significance of the action, isn't the bottom line that we're all still smiling at the end of the day? 

If it's a peach seed you have in the ground, the only tree you'll wind up growing from it is a peach tree. If the doctor wants to chastize us for having such limited imaginations about the harvest and offering only woe for the lack of variety to be found at the end of the day, I guess that's his choice.

But hey, I like peaches.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:theTwelve

ClockCat wrote:

Corporation make decisions on how to effectively go about making profits, and these decision are made amorally.

Apparently you've never worked for a corporation, the majority of our decisions are made without a necessity for moral contemplation whatsoever. We make a multitude of amoral decisions, like mathematicians do. I worked as an intern for a heath insurance company, we don't decide to insure individuals, based on the moral worth of insuring them, but rather if insuring them would be profitable. 

And in terms of shareholders, it's not because of the moral worth of shareholders, that a corporation serves on behalf of their interest, but rather the amoral desire of preserving their jobs, and income. 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Tisk tisk tisk, when

 

Quote:
Tisk tisk tisk, when did collins become a far-right Christian?

By his own words he is an evangelical Christian. 

 

I mean, I guess there could be some left-leaning evangelicals in the states, but it would surprise me. By his rhetoric, I'm pretty damn sure he's right-wing (opposition to public health care, opposition to environmental protection, opposition to a woman's right to choose & stem cell research, etc).

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Apparently you've

 

Quote:
Apparently you've never worked for a corporation, the majority of our decisions are made without a necessity for moral contemplation whatsoever. We make a multitude of amoral decisions, like mathematicians do. I worked as an intern for a heath insurance company, we don't decide to insure individuals, based on the moral worth of insuring them, but rather if insuring them would be profitable.

...What you just described is the very definition of 'amoral'. 

Amoral = Without morals. If you take an action without considering the moral ramifications of that action, that's amoral.

 

You sound like a total douchebag, though, so I'm getting a feeling I might want to avoid addressing you in the future. 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Amoral =

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Amoral = Without morals. If you take an action without considering the moral ramifications of that action, that's amoral.

 

 

 

 

 

That's not what amoral means.

 

 

An amoral action, would be eating a peach. It is neither moral nor immoral to eat a peach.

 

An action can be immoral or moral regardless of whether or not the person considered the moral ramifications.

 

 

 

 


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: The

BobSpence1 wrote:
 The religious conception of it, as obedience to God's laws, is not really a true moral system at all - it is a legalistic requirement of obedience to a set of commandments, more akin to the secular legal system, but inferior to that in the most enlightened (ie, secular) nations, as it has no real appeal system, and the punishments are totally disproportionate to the harm actually caused by the offenses.

That's not the religious conception of morality, Paul writes of the gentiles behaving morally but never knowing scripture, in the premodern world moral values were notion inherent in human beings, that behaving immorally was behaving in a way that we are not supposed to be, and behaving morally is behaving as we are supposed to be. The Axial age value of "love they neighbor of yourself" grow out individuals scolding the presence of the desire for greed and power that arose out of the iron age, proclaiming that's not how we are supposed to be, that we like designed creatures, are here to love our neighbor, not to exploit them for our own selfish gains. It's this notion of telos, that's been the dominant view of morality. It's why the DoI proclaims self evident truths, given to us a by a creator, and the notion of divine providence that are our nation is to live up to. 

With loss of religiosity morality is a mere illusion.

Try making a case for a moral value, that doesn't require some notion of a telos to be coherent. What you can do is make amoral cases for some of these values, such as you shouldn't hit your wife, because you'll go to jail for it. But a decision not to do something out of fear of Jail, is made amorally.

If I were to ask you why should I love my neighbor? What would your response be? Does you argument for why I should, require that necessity of loving him at all? 

Quote:
What then is the 'purpose' for those poor and afflicted themselves? You almost make it sound like their purpose is only to serve as a target for you to exercise your 'good works' and gain your divine brownie points.

The "purpose"? for the sheer sake of love, that to love one another, is the real and ultimate meaning of being human.

Quote:
Basing ones purpose on trying to achieve what one deeply feels 'should be', can justify great evil as well as great good. 

Perhaps it does, but that doesn't negate the fact that morality is an illusion without it. 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:That's not what

 

Quote:
That's not what amoral means.

 

 

An amoral action, would be eating a peach. It is neither moral nor immoral to eat a peach.

...Which is exactly what I said. Or meant to say, anyway.

Amoral = without morals doesn't seem all that ambiguous to me, but whatever.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: An

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 An action can be immoral or moral regardless of whether or not the person considered the moral ramifications.

That's not true. An amoral decision by someone might be percieved as moral act by someone else. 

An example of mine that helps to understand this is a person A and a person B:

Person A:
A man of his times forces other men to be slaves to work his field. He at some point comes to see his actions as evil/wrong/bad (which ever word you're comfortable with). He asks those who he made slaves for forgiveness for forcing them to be his slaves. He gives them reparations for their years of unpaid labor and sets them free.

Would you agree this individual morally progressed?

Person B:
Another man of his times forces other men to be slaves to work his field. After a number of years his economic conditions change, and the money he was making from his agriculture can no longer support what's needed to maintain the slave labor. Realizing that the cost to maintain slaves would be much higher than the economic benefit of retaining them, he sets them free. But he said to himself, if the economic conditions return to where the benefit of having slaves are higher than cost of maintaining them, he would force men to be slaves again.

Even though this other man set the slaves free, did he morally progress or remain the same?

One of the individuals made a moral decision, the other made an amoral one, though they both freed their slaves.

 

 


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

...What you just described is the very definition of 'amoral'. 

...and that was the point, glad you noticed. 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Okay; I propose a new

 Okay; I propose a new game. 

 

Everyone, from this point forward, ignores theTwelve. If you reply to anything he's written, sadly, you'll lose the game. 

Participation across the board is encouraged. Smiling

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

That thing made a quote with my name, and added something that I didn't write. In addition it didn't reply to what I wrote, but attempted to act like it did.

 

How rude.

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: By his

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 By his own words he is an evangelical Christian.

Smiling being an evangelical christian doesn't equate to being on the far right. 

Quote:
By his rhetoric, I'm pretty damn sure he's right-wing (opposition to public health care, opposition to environmental protection, opposition to a woman's right to choose & stem cell research, etc).

I'm curious where did Collins claim he opposes public healthcare, I'm not even sure he opposes a woman's right to choose? Most evangelical christian don't even oppose stem cell research, and as I remember neither does Collins. And he opposes environmental protection? Ken you're making shit up, why the heck you peddling blatant lies? This is funny. 

Also, you shouldn't get into the habit of equating conservative Christians, with far-right Christians, as if they were the same thing, it would be the equivalent of claiming all democrats are part of the far left. 

 

 

 

 


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:That thing

ClockCat wrote:

That thing made a quote with my name, and added something that I didn't write. In addition it didn't reply to what I wrote, but attempted to act like it did.

 

How rude.

My apologies pussy cat, now I understand Ken's response. I made a mistake in formatting the block quotes.

It should have read: 

ClockCat wrote:
A profit-based corporation's ethical code, which are their morals, puts the stakeholder at the #1 interest. They exist to make money. 

followed by my response. 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

theTwelve wrote:
ClockCat wrote:

theTwelve wrote:
Corporation make decisions on how to effectively go about making profits, and these decision are made amorally.

 

According to who? You?

 

A profit-based corporation's ethical code, which are their morals, puts the stakeholder at the #1 interest. They exist to make money.

 

Only when that is broken are they acting against corporate morals.

 

 

Sorry to burst your divinity bubble.

Apparently you've never worked for a corporation, the majority of our decisions are made without a necessity for moral contemplation whatsoever. We make a multitude of amoral decisions, like mathematicians do. I worked as an intern for a heath insurance company, we don't decide to insure individuals, based on the moral worth of insuring them, but rather if insuring them would be profitable. 

And in terms of shareholders, it's not because of the moral worth of shareholders, that a corporation serves on behalf of their interest, but rather the amoral desire of preserving their jobs, and income.

 

Sounds like is is entirely moral within a profit-based corporation. You might need to understand also, that shareholders are only one type of stakeholder.

 

Profit-based corporations exist to make profit. It is moral for them to make profits.

 

To clarify your misunderstanding of a stakeholder as a shareholder, here is an example of some stakeholders.

 

 

Corporate ethics are morals. You may not have the same morals as a company would, but it doesn't mean the ethical code isn't there. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Everyone has their own sense of morals, and so does every culture. Even corporate culture.

 

Preservation is the basis of morals. They stem from an enlightened self interest.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 No, no ClockCat; play my

 No, no ClockCat; play my game instead. Trust me, it'll be more fun in the long run. Smiling


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:What's an Illusion etc.

.      An Illusion is a erroneous mental representation,creating illusory ideas.

Signature ? How ?


Zymotic
Superfan
Zymotic's picture
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
No one has summed the

No one has summed the situation up as well as PZ:

PZ Myers wrote:

The situation is this: the White House has picked for high office a well-known scientist with a good track record in management who wears clown shoes. Worse, this scientist likes to stroll about with his clown shoes going squeak-squeak-squeak, pointing them out to everyone, and bragging about how red and shiny and gosh-darned big his shoes are, and tut-tutting at the apparent lack of fine fashion sense exhibited by his peers who wear rather less flamboyant footwear.

I would rather Obama had appointed someone who wore practical shoes, and didn't make much of a fuss about them, anyway. And excuse me, but I don't want American science to be represented by a clown.

 

My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Zymotic wroye:Clown Shoes

   lol

Signature ? How ?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I also wholeheartedly

 I also wholeheartedly agree with PZ on this one.  Sam has a tendency towards rhetorical flourish, and I can understand why his article is rubbing some people the wrong way.  Collins' work on the genome project was solid.  He believes in evolution.  I can't fault Obama -- a Christian -- for supposing that Collins will continue to be a scientist in the lab and a clown on the street.

Having said that, I don't know where Collins is in his faith these days.  I saw some interview with him a few years ago where he seemed to indicate that his "Waterfall Experience" was rather recent.  This does seem to contradict the claim that he was a Christian at 27.  Then again, Evangelical Christians are well known for bending the truth for Jesus.  He might have been using rhetorical flourish in the interview to try and keep things exciting.  I dunno.

Like Harris, I have concerns for Collins handling of controversial (read: conflicting with the religious agenda) research, specifically where it relates to the human animal.  That is, after all, my favorite branch of science.  Let's not suppose for a second that the long and very rich arm of the church isn't going to be slipping its fingers into Collins pocket when big decisions are pending.  I've noticed that in politics, a little money makes a tough moral decision a lot easier to make.  Collins is already sympathetic to Christian values.  He personally holds them.  I imagine that when push comes to shove, it would be a lot easier to sway him to the Christian side than it would a non-believer or even a non-Evangelical.

Politically, this is a big gamble for Obama.  He's made his pledge to support science, and he's clearly trying to back that up by putting a qualified scientist in a position of real authority.  He's also trying to placate the religious nutters by showing them that he believes religion and science to be ultimately compatible.  If Collins keeps Jesus in his home and out of the office for his entire term, Obama will have won.  If it gets back to Christian Legislation as Usual, Obama will lose a large block of support that voted for him specifically because of his non-religious approach to government.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
The exact details of his

The exact details of his conversion to Christianity is irrelevent he stepped down on the HGP in 2008 and his book was publish in I think 2006. So contrary to Kevin's assertion he was Christian during the HGP.

 

 

I also love how atheists will continue to rationalize when somebody breaks their piss ass schemas. [Of course some people *cough cough* will say that Collins is a stellar director of the HGP quote unquote "despite" his belief [I still love that rationalization]

 

 

Oh and yeah Kevin [or should I say Ken?] cite sources for this:

 

Kevin wrote:

By his rhetoric, I'm pretty damn sure he's right-wing (opposition to public health care, opposition to environmental protection, opposition to a woman's right to choose & stem cell research, etc).

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:The exact details of

 

Quote:
The exact details of his conversion to Christianity is irrelevent he stepped down on the HGP in 2008 and his book was publish in I think 2006. So contrary to Kevin's assertion he was Christian during the HGP.

I was agreeing with you.  By all appearances, he was a Christian during the HGP.

Quote:
 I also love how atheists will continue to rationalize when somebody breaks their piss ass schemas. [Of course some people *cough cough* will say that Collins is a stellar director of the HGP quote unquote "despite" his belief [I still love that rationalization]

If he does a good job as director, it will be because he did not let his faith interfere with the job.  It is clear from his own words that he believes some pretty wacky things about the origins of human morality.  I assume (though I'll be happy to be proven wrong) that he has wacky views about sex, since he is an evangelical.  Sex and morality are two of the most dynamic fields in evolutionary biology right now, and the scientific model differs sharply from Collins' model.  Will he treat research in these fields neutrally without reference to his religion?  I dunno.  If he does, it will be perfectly reasonable to say that he did so despite his convictions otherwise.  What could possibly be wrong about that statement?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
Hambydammit wrote:If he does

Hambydammit wrote:

If he does a good job as director, it will be because he did not let his faith interfere with the job.  It is clear from his own words that he believes some pretty wacky things about the origins of human morality.  I assume (though I'll be happy to be proven wrong) that he has wacky views about sex, since he is an evangelical.  Sex and morality are two of the most dynamic fields in evolutionary biology right now, and the scientific model differs sharply from Collins' model.  Will he treat research in these fields neutrally without reference to his religion?  I dunno.  If he does, it will be perfectly reasonable to say that he did so despite his convictions otherwise.  What could possibly be wrong about that statement?

 

 

 

You can't say he is doing something despite his beliefs of sex/morality, when you don't even know what those beliefs are.

 

All the slides referenced said is that he beliefs that God popped the morality etc... into our noodles, it said nothing of WHAT those are.

 

For example, what is his view on absitence? I don't know. If he doesn't support it, you can't claim to say that he's doing it despite his beliefs, when his beliefs don't entail it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:You can't say he is

 

Quote:
You can't say he is doing something despite his beliefs of sex/morality, when you don't even know what those beliefs are.

He has stated his beliefs on morality clearly and plainly many times.  I purposefully mentioned that I don't know his beliefs on sexuality, but presume that they are similar to those of other evangelicals who share many of his other beliefs.

Quote:
All the slides referenced said is that he beliefs that God popped the morality etc... into our noodles, it said nothing of WHAT those are.

I'm not talking about just those slides.  Collins runs in evangelical circles.  He has opined on morality before, and I have it on reasonable authority from those who care more than I that he has expressed traditional Christian values with regard to morality.  As I said, I'll be happy to be proven wrong if you can do it.  Please, find me a quote from him espousing non-evangelical morals.  It will make me feel better.

Quote:
For example, what is his view on absitence? I don't know. If he doesn't support it, you can't claim to say that he's doing it despite his beliefs, when his beliefs don't entail it.

A 30 minute google search turned up nothing at all relating to Collins' views on abstinence.  I'd say that's one of the reasons Obama nominated him.  He has no easy to find history on the matter, and Obama is clearly not in favor of abstinence only education.

The point is not a particular issue.  Frankly, he appears to have been tight lipped publicly.  Collins is either ignorant or disregards the large number of scientific papers offering evolutionary explanations (and passing peer review) for the origin of morality in animals.  He insists that human morality is different IN KIND from animal morality.  This is NOT the scientific model.

Pineapple, you might be right.  He may be the most liberal evangelical in America.  He might think that sex before marriage is fine, and that homosexuals are normal.  I have read some of his statements about homosexuality.  I'll dig them up if you like.  He has a habit of very subtly implying that homosexuality is overwhelmingly a "free will choice" despite the discovery of genetic markers that significantly increase the probability that a person will be gay.  One can assume from his careful wording that he doesn't want to openly say homosexuality is a wrong moral choice, but why else would he so carefully define it as a choice?  My bet is that's what he believes.  It is, after all, one of the standard beliefs of evangelicals.  But as I say, it's only speculation.

Come to think of it... what differentiates a traditional evangelical Christian in America from a moral naturalist?  The only things that come to mind are sex, drinking, abortion, and homosexuality.  Well... some of the more wacky include things like unquestioning obedience of a wife to a husband and things like that, but they are admittedly fringe dwellers.

Look, I'm not here to bash Collins as the worst possible choice for the position.  He's probably a relatively decent choice.  My point is that Collins has openly admitted that he disagrees with the scientific model of morality, prefering instead the religious model.  That is cause for concern in a man who will be overseeing a scientific agency.  I am concerned.  I would be substantially less concerned if someone who swore by the scientific method in all cases was the head of a science department.

I hope he never lets his religion get in the way of good science.  I wish I didn't have to hope.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
All "evangelical" means is

All "evangelical" means is that they were "born again", i.e they saw the light of Jesus or something.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_again_Christianity

 

Being "right wing" Christian means that they are theologically right wing, not politically.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_left

 

 

Religion is subjective, so Collins being "born again" could mean something completly different that say Ray Comfort's.

 

So just because they are "born again" don't assume that Ray Comfort sets the bar and anything that goes against Comfort's interputation is being done "despite" Collin's evangelicism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 You've never been to

 You've never been to middle America, have you?  Evangelical may mean just "born again" in the dictionary, but it has a lot more connotations in America.

Pineapple, we're in basic agreement here.  He hasn't let much of his actual beliefs about morality hit the press.  This is either scary or comforting, and I don't know which.  Christians have begun to learn that the less they say, the more chance they have of being confirmed for any office in government.  Has he been keeping his views a secret so that he can promote the will of God once he's in office?  I dunno.  Probably not... it doesn't seem to be his M.O.  However, his belief that some things are faith based... that's very dangerous, and worries me.

That's all I'm saying.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:It is

Hambydammit wrote:
It is clear from his own words that he believes some pretty wacky things about the origins of human morality.  

Well, there's very few atheist who don't hold a wacky view of morality, including yourself, with your quote about a magical moral compass, that gets bent by religion. 

I assume (though I'll be happy to be proven wrong) that he has wacky views about sex, since he is an evangelical.

I bet Richard Dawkins has has wacky views about how cows fuck, but I'll be happy to be proven wrong. If you don't have any basis, no evidence what so ever that he holds wacky views about sex, you shouldn't make a fool out of yourself and imply that he possibly does. 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
Hambydammit wrote: You've

Hambydammit wrote:

 You've never been to middle America, have you?  Evangelical may mean just "born again" in the dictionary, but it has a lot more connotations in America.

 

Your anecdotes don't change the definition of Evangelical any more than mine would change the definition of it.

 

 

This is what I was talking about.

 

You are simplying using anecdotes to come up with a schema of evangelicals and then whenever somebody breaks the schema, you just rationalize saying that they are doing it despite being evangelical, when in reality your "definition" of evangelical is based on anecdotes.

 

 

Remember the whole definition debate of atheistism? How Christian tried to use anecdotes to re-define atheism? That didn't go over well, so why should you be allowed to do the same thing?

 

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Hambydammit

theTwelve wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:
It is clear from his own words that he believes some pretty wacky things about the origins of human morality.  

Well, there's very few atheist who don't hold a wacky view of morality, including yourself, with your quote about a magical moral compass, that gets bent by religion. 

I assume (though I'll be happy to be proven wrong) that he has wacky views about sex, since he is an evangelical.

I bet Richard Dawkins has has wacky views about how cows fuck, but I'll be happy to be proven wrong. If you don't have any basis, no evidence what so ever that he holds wacky views about sex, you shouldn't make a fool out of yourself and imply that he possibly does. 

 


Rofl. Oh the irony, when someone who is incapable of believing anything but wacky things about morality says something like this to people who know actual science and facts about morality.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:You are simplying

 

Quote:
You are simplying using anecdotes to come up with a schema of evangelicals and then whenever somebody breaks the schema, you just rationalize saying that they are doing it despite being evangelical, when in reality your "definition" of evangelical is based on anecdotes.

Please tell me which word you would like me to use to describe this group:

"Christians in America who believe that sex is sinful outside of marriage, homosexuality is wrong, and abortion is murder"

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
Hambydammit wrote:Please

Hambydammit wrote:

Please tell me which word you would like me to use to describe this group:

"Christians in America who believe that sex is sinful outside of marriage, homosexuality is wrong, and abortion is murder"

 

 

 

I would call them fundamentalists, or even Christians in America who believe that sex is sinful outside of marriage, homosexuality is wrong, and abortion is murder.

 

And as far as I can tell, Collins does not fall into that category.


 

 

Anyway,  all this is is one big false equivication. Case in point, Kevin saying that I somehow agree with Collins, even though I have never stated that I have.

 

I may create a topic ranting about this, but the whole issue I stated in my previous post is really starting to grind my gears.

 

 

It's like saying that all feminists are man hating lesbians, and when you meet a straight, non-man hating  feminist, then that person isn't a feminist.

 

Spotlight fallacy

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/spotlight.html

 

 

Quote:

Bill: "Jane, you say you are a feminist, but you can't be."
Jane: "What! What do you mean? Is this one of your stupid jokes or something?"
Bill: "No, I'm serious. Over the summer I saw feminists appear on several talk shows and news shows and I read about them in the papers. The women were really bitter and said that women were victims of men and needed to be given special compensation. You are always talking about equal rights and forging your own place in the world. So, you can't be a feminist."
Jane: "Bill, there are many types of feminism, not just the brands that get media attention."
Bill: "Oh. Sorry."

 

 

 

 

 


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:  Rofl. Oh the

Vastet wrote:
 
Rofl. Oh the irony, when someone who is incapable of believing anything but wacky things about morality says something like this to people who know actual science and facts about morality.

You shouldn't get into the business of cum swallowing. Hamy's not a scientist, he read a few books, attempts to churn out some of the shit he learned, but half the time doesn't have a clue as to what he read. He's the idiot that claimed that Bob Altemeyer's study of RWA types, was a study of the mind of theism, only to embarrass himself when confronted by other individuals who have read his work.

Hamy is what you call a poser, like Rook Hawkins, he found suckers on a website that eat his plagued with nonsense rantings, particularly when it comes to "morality".

Now, you accused me of believing wacky things about morality, now I want you go through my post and point to one instance were I claimed something "wacky" about morality. I'd wager I know far more about the science, and history of the concept, more so than a dumbass like Hamby does that's for sure. And I'll take him on, on his views of morality, particularly the role of religion in moral conception, any day of the week, and we can start to see which one of us really holds "wacky" views about it.