Conclusive evidence for Design!

[Peter_Plato]

The odds are astronomical… but by basic logic, not quite as astronomical as an all-powerful super-being that created the universe.

Just how are those odds calculated? As far as logic goes they are indeterminable, not astronomical. Quite a difference in terms of rendering a calculation.

 

[tonyrey]

On what is the unspecified modern, defensible definition of morality is based?

A typical evasion of the issue which reflects an inability to offer a rational justification of a still unspecified “modern, defensible” definition of morality - followed by a further unsubstantiated assertion which fails to refute a single statement that has been presented in this thread - thereby demonstrating to everyone the futility of the “attack if you cannot defend” tactic. As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing…

 

[tonyrey]

Just how are those odds calculated? As far as logic goes they are indeterminable, not astronomical. Quite a difference in terms of rendering a calculation.

I guarantee that no rational response will be forthcoming!

 

[tonyrey]

The odds are astronomical… but by basic logic, not quite as astronomical as an all-powerful super-being that created the universe. Just because it’s easier to say “God did it,” that doesn’t make it a simpler explanation. Just a more simplistic one.

Nothing could be more simplistic than the fatuous notion that “matter did it”… Unparallelled naivete!

 

[tonyrey]

Nothing could be more simplistic than the fatuous notion that “matter did it”… Unparallelled naivete!

The dog in question being the so-called purposeless dog amusing itself by pretending everything is purposeless…

 

[tonyrey]

OK, you win. Can we go home now.

You need your skis, Brad, for such a hasty retreat. Reminds me of Napoleon…

 

[wanstronian]

Strange, because I did. But, since when does the mainstream media give voice to mainstream Christians? No, they’re more in the business of trying to make us all look like Pat Robertson.

That’s a fair point. As most people’s exposure to different ideologies is through some form of media, there is always a degree of bias and filtering.

And I have personally heard numerous atheists say such things. And if you yourself take no such pride, why then did you feel it necessary to say that when atheists do it “there are no strings attached.” That sounds like someone trying to trumpet their moral superiority to me.

I’m afraid I have no control on who you choose to interpret what I say. I can only speak for myself.

I’ll grant that first point, but Dawkins is nevertheless an undeniable proselytizer. And I think you’re quite wrong on that second point – religiosity is declining in the European West, but growing by leaps and bounds elsewhere, and those cultures where religiosity is declining are declining altogether as their populations are rapidly decreasing and falling below the replacement rate, and they are rapidly being overtaken by Muslims.

Again, that’s a good point, and a subject worthy of several dozen threads in its own right. Islam and Christianity are equally wrong IMO, but at least Christianity doesn’t attempt to impose its views by violence. That said, my opinion is that the main reason for this is that Christianity is overwhelmingly found in democratic first-world nations, where secular laws are in place to prevent such acts. One can see from the history books that it was not always thus, with horrifying results. It would be interesting/terrifying to see what would happen if the US, say, reverted to a Christian theocracy. I wouldn’t want to be a homosexual, for example.

Yes, Judeo-Christian tradition causes so much damage. I mean… democracy, hospitals, universities, the abolition of slavery. Egads. What a horrific legacy. Joseph Stalin was onto something much better.

What’s Stalin got to do with it? You’re not still harping on the “Stalin was bad because he was an atheist,” are you? I though you were brighter than that.

“The abolition of slavery” - how good of them to assist in abolishing that which they actively endorsed for so many centuries. Instead consider: misogyny, racism, slavery(!), homophobia, oppression. How about Savita Halappanavar, who was recently murdered because her medical staff worked “in a Catholic Country”?

No, they come from having been raised in a society whose values were formed by centuries of Judeo-Christian thought and philosophy.

No, they come from my membership of the human race, which has evolved in societies and developed the appropriate ethics for group existence.

Seriously, just because someone wrote some decent human values in a religious book once, that doesn’t give religion ownership of those values. You think people weren’t generally nice to each other before that? If that’s the case, how did the societies form that allowed the authorship of the bible in the first place?

Quite easily: a) they don’t always work b) they make people more likely to engage in sex with multiple partners by providing an illusory “safety”… the list could go on.

The fact is that condoms are 99% safe, when used properly. To blame the condom for its own misuse is poor reasoning. It’s like blaming the gun for the murder.

And the Catholic Church is sex obsessed? Nay, sir, I believe it’s secular Western culture that’s obsessed with sex.

I meant, of course, that the Catholic Church is obsessed with the prevention of sex outside its own arbitrary and narrow view of what is considered acceptable. A man and a woman. Not outside marriage. Only for reproduction. No masturbation.

It’s the new god of the modern world. For proof, watch TV or listen to the radio for more than 5 minutes.

You talk as if sexual desire is somehow a new thing. People are more relaxed and open about sex these days, and on the whole I think that’s a good thing. It substantially reduces repressed emotion and irrational, religion-induced guilt. It allows people to express their desires without fear of societal judgement; it would be wrong to say that these desires didn’t exist prior to the use of contraception.

Whether the trade off in degraded sexual health is worth it, depends on your point of view; but that’s an individual matter, not an institutional one.

 

[wanstronian]

But don’t take it from me or the Pope–this Harvard AIDS expert says the Pope is right:

*A leading AIDS expert from Harvard University has come out in support of comments made by Pope Benedict XVI suggesting that the distribution of contraception actually spreads rather than prevents AIDS…

“There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the US-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates,” he explained. “This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”
Exactly - it’s not the condom’s fault, it’s the (non-)wearer’s fault.

Look - people are going to have sex whether the Church likes it or not. The key is to make it as safe as possible, not try to repress the most basic human urge there is. People get all sorts of infections which are spread by various means. Arbitrarily singling out sexual infections as somehow different has no logical basis. Alcohol abuse kills many more people each year, yet I’m not aware of the CC forbidding drinking.

Let’s think about that for a second… hmm… why are people having more sex? Oh, yeah, maybe because they are being sold the lie of “safe sex” (i.e. contraception).

 

[tonyrey]

We evolved to where we are today by having sex, and lots of it. Early proto-humans and their ancestors did not pair up and live monogamous lives. Then organised religion came along and started making moral judgements over what’s right and wrong. Those moral judgements are now being seen for the ethically baseless mandates that they are.

What is the** rational** basis for rejecting Christian principles as “ethically baseless mandates”? The amoral motives of pleasure and convenience?

Until those questions are answered - and not evaded - your assertions are worthless and can be safely ignored by any** reasonable **person…

 

[tonyrey]

In an undesigned universe moral principles have no rational foundation. Good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust are no more than human conventions. Man alone decides what is permissible and categorical imperatives no longer exist. Nothing in an amoral universe is a rational basis for objective moral values. Everything becomes a matter of utility and convenience.

The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity become mere slogans ignored by anyone who recognises the futility of attempting to impose arbitrary rules on mammals which just happen to exist. Life becomes a game in which the unscrupulous players take all. Moral scruples become a handicap in the quest for pleasure and power. The vaunted value of empathy is worthless in the light of the bloodstained history of the human race. An appeal to reason and conscience is illogical when reason and conscience are undermined by the claim that a person is merely an advanced ape.

“Do your own thing” sums up perfectly the mentality of the secular society in which the number of abortions, suicides and cases of child abuse has escalated dramatically. The philosophy of “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” is the inexorable outcome of materialism in which there is no rational basis for intangible values. There is no logical stopping-place on the descent from the value of everything to the value of nothing: absolutism>humanism>racism>nationalism-tribalism>nepotism>egoism>nihilism. When persons are regarded as things everything is permissible - but worthless…

 

[wanstronian]

Just how are those odds calculated? As far as logic goes they are indeterminable, not astronomical. Quite a difference in terms of rendering a calculation.

I don’t know - you’re the one who said they’re astronomical. I’m just pointing out that logically, a being who could create a universe must be more complex than the universe it’s creating. Ergo, more implausible (absent an explanation for its existence, which we don’t have). In fact, the only phenomenon we have ever observed creating something more complex than itself is… natural processes. Or, at a push, mathematical algorithms. We have never seen a sentient entity create something more complex then itself.

The problem in asserting that the odds of our existence are astronomical is that it starts from a position of goal-seeking. The odds of the precise particular form of our universe, if it were calculated at the point of the beginning of that universe, are, as you say, astronomical. But those odds get a whole lot better a whole lot faster if you don’t assume that our current universe is the only way it could possible have been - that it’s either *this *or nothing. That is a false way of looking at it.

As an example, consider pushing a rock down a hill. If someone told you they could predict precisely how many pieces the rock would break into on the way down, how many other rocks it would dislodge, how many pieces they would each break into etc., and also precisely where each component of the resultant landslide would come to rest and in which orientation, you’d think they were mad. But if they merely said that they thought the initial rock would break up, dislodge other rocks, and the whole lot would end up somewhere down there, you’d accept that without hesitation. The odds of a precise configuration are impossible to calculate, yet a precise configuration is exactly what results.

 

[wanstronian]

I guarantee that no rational response will be forthcoming!

You wouldn’t know rational if it bit you on the leg.

I’m not going to engage with your empty show-boating any more. I’ve demonstrated clearly on so many occasions that all your arguments are fallacious, and if you genuinely can’t recognise that yourself, then there’s nothing to be gained from discussions with you.

 

[wanstronian]

You need your skis, Brad, for such a hasty retreat. Reminds me of Napoleon…

What’s the point in fighting when the enemy turns out to be a herd of zombies who don’t know they’re already dead?

 

[tonyrey]

*I guarantee that no rational response will be forthcoming! *

The sole significance of your post is that you have evaded the question and thereby demonstrated yet once again your inability to do so…

What is the** rational** basis for rejecting Christian principles as “ethically baseless mandates”? The amoral motives of pleasure and convenience?

Until those questions are answered - and not evaded - your assertions are worthless and can be safely ignored by any** reasonable **person…

 

[tonyrey]

What’s the point in fighting when the enemy turns out to be a herd of zombies who don’t know they’re already dead?

That’s what Napoleon thought before he came to grief!

 

[tonyrey]

've demonstrated clearly on so many occasions that all your arguments are fallacious, and if you genuinely can’t recognise that yourself, then there’s nothing to be gained from discussions with you.

If you cannot produce an example of one occasion when you have “demonstrated” an argument of mine is fallacious it remains a worthless excuse to which no one will pay attention…

It is easy to make false assertions but to justify them is rather more difficult. The expression “all your arguments” really gives the game away!

 

[prodigalson2011]

I’m afraid I have no control on who you choose to interpret what I say. I can only speak for myself.

Indeed. I just contend that if there were absolutely no pride gleaned from what you do, it wouldn’t enter your mind to point out that charitable acts on the part of unbelievers are somehow more “pure” than those of believers.

Again, that’s a good point, and a subject worthy of several dozen threads in its own right. Islam and Christianity are equally wrong IMO, but at least Christianity doesn’t attempt to impose its views by violence. That said, my opinion is that the main reason for this is that Christianity is overwhelmingly found in democratic first-world nations, where secular laws are in place to prevent such acts. One can see from the history books that it was not always thus, with horrifying results. It would be interesting/terrifying to see what would happen if the US, say, reverted to a Christian theocracy. I wouldn’t want to be a homosexual, for example.

And why is Christianity overwhelmingly found in democratic first-world nations? Answer: because the seeds of modern-day democracy were planted by Christianity. Granted, it was a gradual development with its painful missteps along the way, but men don’t change overnight. Fortunately, though, Christian doctrine never changes regardless of the moral failings of its adherents. The notion of there being neither “male nor female, slave nor free” and “loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you” are clearly laid out in the earliest Christian teaching.

America has never been a Christian theocracy, so I’m not sure what you mean by “reverting” to such. In any case, a Catholic theocracy nowadays would not be horrific at all: Vatican City is still one and you see how horribly oppressed its citizens are. Moreover, being a homosexual would be cause for no more fear than it would be in any other societal setting: you will always have homophobes with or without strong religious convictions, and more to the point, homosexuality has been a recognized problem in Christian communities since the earliest days of the Church–many of the early Church fathers wrote about it–but they were not systematically persecuted or abused. Nor were unbelievers. The freedom of conscience and respect for those who disagree with you is another irrevocable principle of Christianity (“love your enemies”, “love your neighbor”, “no man may come to me unless my Father calls him,” [the implication being in that last one that faith cannot be forced on anyone])

 

[prodigalson2011]

What’s Stalin got to do with it? You’re not still harping on the “Stalin was bad because he was an atheist,” are you? I though you were brighter than that.

I am, don’t worry. No, I’m not saying Stalin was bad because he was an atheist. I’m pointing out the obvious fact that a religious worldview or lack thereof does not determine the moral character of a person. Those who have done evil in the name of Christianity were acting in direct, blatant contradiction of the faith they professed. The problem is not Christianity, it is the corrupting influence of power on human nature. That this corruption applies equally across the board is demonstrated more than well enough by the handful of atheistic leaders who have, in just the past century, managed to shed more blood than all the religious wars and persecutions of the previous 2000 years.

“The abolition of slavery” - how good of them to assist in abolishing that which they actively endorsed for so many centuries. Instead consider: misogyny, racism, slavery(!), homophobia, oppression. How about Savita Halappanavar, who was recently murdered because her medical staff worked “in a Catholic Country”?

Slavery is another issue, like democracy, that was planted in the very foundation of the Church and which developed steadily over time. As early as the 4th century, St. Augustine taught that slavery was totally incompatible with natural law, but he and most other theologians, who agreed with him on that point, believed it was an institution that could be tolerated, so long as slaves were treated humanely and justly. But the Catholic Church has a long history of combating and denouncing the type of slavery most people associate with the term, the like of which was seen in America and Europe from the 1500s on.

And, yes, let’s consider those other things…

Misogyny: Christianity elevated the status of women to an unprecedented level. This development, again, is a direct result of SCriptural teaching. Again we return to the teaching that, in Christ, there is “neither male nor female…” Some of the most important people in Christian history have been women, starting with Mary, whom so many say we worship; St. Therese of Lisieux, who is considered a doctor of the Church; Mary Magdalene and the other female witnesses and disciples of the Early Church whose testimony is given primary citation in the Gospel accounts of the resurrection at a time when the testimony of women was considered culturally worthless. I could go on and on. Women have played an important and esteemed role in Catholic culture from the very beginning and continue to do so. Consider Joan of Arc, Mother Theresa, and Mother Angelica, or Dorothy Day or any of countless other revered Christian women.

Racism: has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity and the Catholic Church has, in fact, always been opposed to it. The fact that many professing Christians were racist had aboslutely nothing to do with Christianity, any more than the existence of secular racists implies that secularism is inherently racist. This is only, once again, an example of the failure of individuals to conform to the teachings of the faith they supposedly hold.

Homophobia: disapproval of homosexual behavior does not amount to homophobia. Homophobia is a pathological fear of homosexuals, which the Church has never experienced or fostered. Homophobia is a complex psychological issue which is usually associated with uncertainty about one’s own sexuality and repressed homosexual feelings. The most homophobic people I’ve ever met haven’t been religious at all, rather they’re usually the type who are obsessed with their body image, the number of women they’ve bedded, being “macho men”, etc. This is not to say that there aren’t homophobic Christians–there are undoubtedly true homophobes in every sect of society from Muslim to atheist–but Christianity does not condone or promote homophobia, any more than it promotes adulteraphobia or blasphemophobia.

Oppression: Christianity promotes the freedom of conscience and equal treatment for all. Again, the fact that secular institutions and leaders and even clergy members have abused those teachings does not imply that oppression is a tenet of Christianity, any more than the corruption and abuses of political leaders in our own country implies that the Constitution condones or encourages corruption. These kinds of examples are really just vacuous. These issues pop up in any and all human civilizations.

As for the case of Mrs. Halappanavar, this has been yet another case of shameless exploitation on the part of the pro-choice movement. The facts behind the case are much more complex and much less sensationalistic than they have been made out to be. Of course, it’s a tragedy that this woman lost her life, but the pro-life laws of Ireland have nothing to do with it. This rabid attack on Christian morality is based upon the hysterical accusations of her husband, who is no doubt out of his mind with grief and understandably angry. My heart goes out to him, but the fact is that this case had nothing to do with abortion and there is nothing in Catholic teaching that would have prevented the proper procedures from being carried out. This was simply a case of poor judgment and bad practice on the part of the medical staff. See: catholicvoicesmedia.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/no-evidence-that-catholic-ethos-of-galway-university-hospital-in-any-way-prevented-savita-from-receiving-proper-medical-treatment/

 

[prodigalson2011]

No, they come from my membership of the human race, which has evolved in societies and developed the appropriate ethics for group existence.

Seriously, just because someone wrote some decent human values in a religious book once, that doesn’t give religion ownership of those values. You think people weren’t generally nice to each other before that? If that’s the case, how did the societies form that allowed the authorship of the bible in the first place?

This really demonstrates an incredible historical naivete. Just look at the caste system in India to see an example of a living artifact of pre-Christian social structures. Any reputable historian would agree that it is specifically Judeo-Christian values that have shaped modern civilization. And “if that’s the case”, the obvious answer to your question is one that you cannot accept: they were led by God.

The fact is that condoms are 99% safe, when used properly. To blame the condom for its own misuse is poor reasoning. It’s like blaming the gun for the murder.

Actually, condoms cut the risk of HIV infection by only 80% and are much less effective against many other STDs. And comparing condoms to guns is a faulty analogy. People intentionally misuse guns by shooting people; the misuse of contraceptives is a matter of practical mistakes. Further, people are not inclined to murder nearly as much as they are to have sex. The obvious effect of promoting contraception is a virtual invitation to sexual promiscuity, ergo more sex partners, ergo more sexual encounters, ergo more infections, pregnancies, etc. The statistics bear this out. Did you read that article? Literally everywhere where contraception is widely available, these problems increase. They don’t help the problem. Simple as that. There’s nothing to argue.

I meant, of course, that the Catholic Church is obsessed with the prevention of sex outside its own arbitrary and narrow view of what is considered acceptable. A man and a woman. Not outside marriage. Only for reproduction. No masturbation.

When’s the last time you saw Catholic priests roaming the country side looking for fornicators and masturbators? The Catholic Church is not obsessed with sex, it’s obsessed with saving souls and spreading the teaching of Jesus Christ, of which sexual issues account for a very small part. It is the world that is obsessed with sex, and thus obsessed with the relatively simple (simple in theory, difficult in practice) teachings of the Catholic Church. It’s not the Church that’s neurotically fixated on this: it’s the world.

And, again, the social effects of deviating from these teachings have been demonstrably bad for society. Again and again and again.

You talk as if sexual desire is somehow a new thing. People are more relaxed and open about sex these days, and on the whole I think that’s a good thing. It substantially reduces repressed emotion and irrational, religion-induced guilt. It allows people to express their desires without fear of societal judgement; it would be wrong to say that these desires didn’t exist prior to the use of contraception.

Come on. No one is that stupid. Sexual desire is as old as life itself. But, as rational creatures, we can control it. So it’s a good thing that the world is so relaxed and open about it, because people feel good? Let’s move away from that emotional argument (people feel good when they take drugs, too. So I guess heroin’s a great thing, right?) and look at the real world effects of this sexual liberation: broken homes, rampaging rates of divorceand infidelity–and children with more psychological, social and emotional problems as a result–insane rates of STD infection and unwanted pregnancies, a complete loss of respect for the inherent dignity of human life, civilizations waning and in decline. History, as always, bears witness: civilization is built upon the nuclear family (monogamous couples with children) and any civilization that abandons that model inevitably fails.

Whether the trade off in degraded sexual health is worth it, depends on your point of view; but that’s an individual matter, not an institutional one.

No, it’s not. Sex is what builds and sustains any human institution. What a society believes and practices sexually has ramifications on all of its members. Sex is not simply a “personal matter.”

 

[wanstronian]

If you cannot produce an example of one occasion when you have “demonstrated” an argument of mine is fallacious it remains a worthless excuse to which no one will pay attention…

It is easy to make false assertions but to justify them is rather more difficult. The expression “all your arguments” really gives the game away!

Not really - it really is ALL your arguments. They all boil down to the Argument from Ignorance. You have no evidence for your beliefs, so you spend your entire time asserting, baselessly, that “rationality can’t come from irrational particles” and so on. Your god is the god of the gaps, you insert it as a default answer wherever you consider science to be incomplete… and then you accuse ME of being irrational!

If I link to one of the posts I’m talking about, will you accept it? I predict not.

Incidentally, your phrase “no one will pay attention” reveals that you are more interested in playing to an audience, than in rational debate.