Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[theCelestrian]

Gosh, from my point of view, it's you guys who have the crap behavior...  To each his own, they used to say (but that was in a time of more "tolerance" than what is popular today).

Come on, Gene, that's not intellectually honest and you know it.  Remember this?

Yada Yada...

Jerry Seinfeld...

Antisemite...

You implied I was an antisemite because I said, "Ah. I see.  You and I are speaking different languages and having a conversation 'about nothing', are we?  That's fine.  I won't bother anymore,"  and you have the gall to sit there, figuratively look me in the eye and say I'M the one who's being "intolerant."

:::shakes head::: Jesus fucking christ, Gene.

Never once have I been "intolerant" to you.  Never once have I given you a series of nonsensical answers simply because I no longer wanted to talk about your beliefs, or call you, or throw any kind of prejorative in your general direction.

I'll tell you what, Gene, I better never ever hear you call the show to try to give Ian or any of the FTL crew an "object lesson" in tolerance and civility, or talk about "that sneer you guys get in your voice," because I will call the show immediately and call you and that bullshit right then and there, and then you and I can speak "voice-to-voice" about who has shown who the crap behavior.

Like I said earlier, pretty unimpressive, Gene.  I guess I'm more surprised than anything, because until then I thought you and I were having a pretty respectful and productive discourse.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Gosh, from my point of view, it's you guys who have the crap behavior...  To each his own, they used to say (but that was in a time of more "tolerance" than what is popular today).

Come on, Gene, that's not intellectually honest and you know it.  Remember this?

Yada Yada...

Jerry Seinfeld...

Antisemite...

Just trying to lighten up the conversation.  Lighten up will you???

Never once have I been "intolerant" to you.  Never once have I given you a series of nonsensical answers simply because I no longer wanted to talk about your beliefs, or call you, or throw any kind of prejorative in your general direction.

And what makes you think I was referring to you?  There are many others posting here you know...

I'll tell you what, Gene, I better never ever hear you call the show to try to give Ian or any of the FTL crew an "object lesson" in tolerance and civility, or talk about "that sneer you guys get in your voice," because I will call the show immediately and call you and that bullshit right then and there, and then you and I can speak "voice-to-voice" about who has shown who the crap behavior.

Like I said earlier, pretty unimpressive, Gene.  I guess I'm more surprised than anything, because until then I thought you and I were having a pretty respectful and productive discourse.

* in best Clint Eastwood voice*
"Ya gotta ask yourself this question.  Do I feel lucky?  Well, DO ya, punk..."

Come on man, it's a stupid discussion board and most of what is posted is light-hearted.  Save the violence for those who are trying to enslave us...

[dharveymi]

I do understand the whole way that evolution is not "progressive" argument, but there of course is something different when it comes to morals.  Besides the fact that a moral system can help a person, groups, and societies choose between "right and wrong", certain individuals have an ability to examine their own moral system, to judge it against a higher system, one they think is better than their societies.  These special individuals, are looking beyond what is to something else, what is that?  What are they comparing against?  It's not their moral system (learned and instinctual), it's not their society's moral system.  What do they see that all of the rest of us are blind to?  From an evolutionary stand-point of course.

[BKO]

Hrmm. Page 112. I believe I shall give CA something to chew on and discuss. It concerns the disgusting fable known as the bible. And before you get the idea that I am a believer in evolution, you should think again. Anyway, I know CA to be one of the more rational people who visit these boards, so here is the link to Thomas Paine's work, "The Age of Reason".


http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html[/b]]http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html

Discuss.

[theCelestrian]

Just trying to lighten up the conversation.  Lighten up will you???

Alright, fair enough.  Let's reset.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Peace, love (don't forget I'm a child of the '60's...

[Rillion]

I do understand the whole way that evolution is not "progressive" argument, but there of course is something different when it comes to morals.  Besides the fact that a moral system can help a person, groups, and societies choose between "right and wrong", certain individuals have an ability to examine their own moral system, to judge it against a higher system, one they think is better than their societies.  These special individuals, are looking beyond what is to something else, what is that?  What are they comparing against?  It's not their moral system (learned and instinctual), it's not their society's moral system.  What do they see that all of the rest of us are blind to?  From an evolutionary stand-point of course.

Moral systems are not consistent, cohesive package deals-- I'm not even sure that "system" is the right word to refer to the values that a society happens to favor most, because it implies that they were deliberately chosen.  But there are very few people in the world who actually spend much time at all trying to be consistent in their morality-- most are too busy actually trying to survive, find food, etc., and this has been the case even moreso for the vast majority of humans who have ever lived.  Evolution can't really explain the behavior of specific modern individuals who go against the prevailing morality in their culture, because a) they're modern, and b) they're individuals.  By necessity evolutionary explanations are general  ones, and they are ancient ones.  The fact that the capacity for empathy evolved in our ancestors does not explain why a particular German should choose to hide Jews in her basement during the Holocaust while another one turns them in to the S.S., for example.  It may be something in her genes, but it's not a "save the Jews" gene, and it's not a "moral superiority" gene.  Some people just have a disposition toward being more skeptical, more brave, more compassionate, or other qualities which cause them to challenge the morality of those around them. 

[ChristianAnarchist]

I found the following essay on Jesus as a tax protester to be interesting.  This is from CHAPTER 7: JESUS CHRIST, ANARCHO-CAPITALIST p. 67

http://jesus-on-taxes.com/Page2.html

    "How, then, shall we resolve the apparent conflict between the spirit of generosity and active care for “the least” or our fellows, which Jesus urged upon us, with the fiercely competitive, self-seeking aspects of capitalism? 
    In the first place, the comparison is onerous because Jesus did not urge his principles on mankind for the betterment of society; he urged them on individuals for the salvation of their souls, which is why he is called Savior. Society clearly benefits when some individuals practice nonviolence and exhibit love and care for their fellows, but that is merely a benevolent side effect of their adherence to the wisdom of Jesus for the good of one’s soul. If all members of society conformed to Jesus’ principles, the market economy would undoubtedly be profoundly impacted, but it would not change its nature. It would remain a market economy, beneficial to society just as the Jesus-principles are beneficial to an individual’s eternal soul.  Moreover, in the absence of the dangerous prerogative of the state to initiate force, capitalism is the only imaginable societal arrangement. It  thrives on the absence of force. All of the other social formulations that have been concocted require the initiation of force at some point for their implementation, which is why they don’t work well and why Jesus’ principles condemn them.
     In the second place, capitalism often extravagantly rewards, with profits, entrepreneurs who best fulfill the demands of the market. But by the same token, it simultaneously benefits consumers, who acquire the most desirable products and services at the lowest  possible prices as a result of the entrepreneurs’ genius, risk taking and effort."

[Stephanie]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/eulogy_filled_with_pro

[BKO]

If Jesus was so goddamn smart, then why, praytell did this supposed son of a god seem to be illiterate?

I haven't seen a single writing of his own to date.

Its always been heresay, most of which came 40 to 150 years or more after the guy was long dead and allegedly raised to some etheral plane of existence....even more heresay. You know, you would think that this god would have illicited printing machines to make his "word" more easily recognizable and accepted. But no, we have to accept it on the "blind faith" and "good character" of backward thinking, mostly illiterate Jews. To think, an omnipotent GOD, to make his alleged only begotten SON (surprisingly familiar with Osiris and the SUN itself) completely illiterate, and depended upon others to "record" his teachings. Pathetic.

This is the same god who is supposed to have "created" the heavens and earth in six days, and must have FUCKED UP ROYALLY when he made all the OTHER PLANETS (the jews never really liked astronomy, and had no real knowledge of it) completely worthless chunks of rock in space. Just this one, precious rock has his illiterate son visited. And I guess it must have been a real BOTHER for this god to have had to do the same for all the other inhabited planets this universe probably has.

Man. This Jesus guy must still be traversing the sands of other planets just WAITING to be crucified for actions other people choose to take upon their own accord.

Religion is so silly. The one that kicks the shit out of my nuts is this christianity garbage.

[dharveymi]

If Jesus was so goddamn smart, then why, praytell did this supposed son of a god seem to be illiterate?

I haven't seen a single writing of his own to date.

Its always been heresay, most of which came 40 to 150 years or more after the guy was long dead and allegedly raised to some etheral plane of existence....even more heresay. You know, you would think that this god would have illicited printing machines to make his "word" more easily recognizable and accepted. But no, we have to accept it on the "blind faith" and "good character" of backward thinking, mostly illiterate Jews. To think, an omnipotent GOD, to make his alleged only begotten SON (surprisingly familiar with Osiris and the SUN itself) completely illiterate, and depended upon others to "record" his teachings. Pathetic.

This is the same god who is supposed to have "created" the heavens and earth in six days, and must have FUCKED UP ROYALLY when he made all the OTHER PLANETS (the jews never really liked astronomy, and had no real knowledge of it) completely worthless chunks of rock in space. Just this one, precious rock has his illiterate son visited. And I guess it must have been a real BOTHER for this god to have had to do the same for all the other inhabited planets this universe probably has.

Man. This Jesus guy must still be traversing the sands of other planets just WAITING to be crucified for actions other people choose to take upon their own accord.

Religion is so silly. The one that kicks the shit out of my nuts is this christianity garbage.

O.K. I'll bite.  Who is this Socrates guy?  Socrates was an ancient Greek philosopher who is widely credited for laying the foundation for Western philosophy. But, I have not yet found anything that he has wrote.  If he was so smart why was he illiterate.  (Actually, to be illiterate would mean that he could neither read nor write, not that he chose not to write, but who cares about the truth.)

Oh, about the astronomy thing, consider Job 9:9; 38:31, 32; Isaiah 13:10; and Amos 5:8.  You might also want to read the first few chapters of Danial.    I don't think you will.  We could talk about the finer points of why Jesus came to earth, but I don't think you really care about that either.

[dharveymi]

Evolution can't really explain the behavior of specific modern individuals who go against the prevailing morality in their culture, because a) they're modern, and b) they're individuals.

Is this true about all science or just evolution?  Does this mean that science is limited, unable to answer any question?

P.S.  Thank you for your help.  I think I understand, and it makes perfect sense to me.  As a matter of fact, I agree completely.

[Rillion]

Evolution can't really explain the behavior of specific modern individuals who go against the prevailing morality in their culture, because a) they're modern, and b) they're individuals.

Is this true about all science

Oh, heavens no.  There's loads of research in moral psychology that I am sure could help you out.  In fact, if you're interested I would really suggest Marc Hauser's book Moral Minds, which has come out recently....it's a treasure trove of all sorts of interesting experimental data about how we think about morality, plus he's a good writer so he makes it come across accessibly and interestingly.  It's just that evolutionary psychology is best used for explaining universal traits of human behavior.  If a tendency isn't universal, it's hard to say that it has an evolutionary basis.

Does this mean that science is limited, unable to answer any question?

Is science limited?  Sure.  Science can't tell you whether chocolate cake is better than apple pie, or irises are prettier than roses, or the Beastie Boys are better than Beck.  Matters of taste are pretty much off limits. 

There are two other areas that are off limits, but with caveats: the supernatural and morality.  The party line is that science is methodologically naturalistic, so it can't comment on the existence of the supernatural.  But most belief in supernatural agents include them interacting with the natural world in some way (granting prayers, causing or preventing natural disasters, etc.), and you can study those.  Studies on prayer have already been conducted using hospital patients and having anonymous people pray for them.   A friend of mine is conducting fMRI studies of different kinds of prayer to see what's happening in the brain when people perform them. 

As for morality-- you're not supposed to derive an "ought" from an "is."  That's the naturalistic fallacy again....just because something is the case doesn't mean it should be.  But at the same time you can't formulate moral judgments in a vacuum, independent of what is actually happening in reality.  So science might not be able to tell us what is moral, but at least it should be able to inform our moral judgments by revealing truths about existence.

P.S.  Thank you for your help.  I think I understand, and it makes perfect sense to me.  As a matter of fact, I agree completely.

Not at all, it's nice to have productive discussion without drama and sniping.   

[dharveymi]

But most belief in supernatural agents include them interacting with the natural world in some way (granting prayers, causing or preventing natural disasters, etc.), and you can study those.

I don't really understand this.  Strictly speaking, acts of supernatural intervention would not be repeatable.  What would a person do to "force" a powerful being to repeat a particular behavior.  Any god worth the name would  not consent to be part of an experiment.

[dharveymi]

Thanks for the recommended reading.  I have it reserved at the library.