24 Aug 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou may be right, it may not be a good tactic in this situation for I don't
I hope you will excuse my scepticism, but I have encountered the 'only insulting them for their own good' argument before. I'm sure you don't really believe, any more than Dasa does, that insulting somebody will lead to them developing some sort of sympathy with your point of view. I suspect rather that this is a post-hoc rationalisation whereby you ...[text shortened]... which you recognise as morally questionable even according to your own professed standards.
seem to be getting any converts.
24 Aug 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI just don't see the need to try to understand something that is not
I think you can understand, but it threatens your belief system, so you reject it so strenuously that you pretend that nobody could possibly accept it.
If you really couldn't understand, you might seek to understand, but you don't. You refuse at every turn to listen to any possible explanation as to how it might have happened and insult the explainer or ...[text shortened]... ing ridiculous, but rather someone who is threatened by the possibility that it might be true.
true, much the same way as you probably do.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsi'm sorry, i didn't hear dawkins say anything in that video. can you find one where dawkins actaully talks about what his idea of morality is?
I suppose you would agree with Dawkins idea on morality
that there is no such think as good and evil, whatever happens
just happens, it is no ones fault.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNiCb0zf_Eg&NR=1
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsgood, now watch the video to learn that his morality has nothing to do with what you claim about his morality.
Here then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCL63d66frs
"as social animals, we worked out that we wouldn't want to live in a society where it was acceptable to rape, murder or steal. we have a moral conscience and a mutual empathy and it is constantly evolving."
"some of us lag behind the advancing wave of moral standards, and some of us are ahead"
-dawkins
yup, i agree with those. i don't agree with everything he says about morality, but i do agree with the core of what he says.
25 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritIn the other video the speaker was talking about what Dawkins had
good, now watch the video to learn that his morality has nothing to do with what you claim about his morality.
"as social animals, we worked out that we wouldn't want to live in a society where it was acceptable to rape, murder or steal. we have a moral conscience and a mutual empathy and it is constantly evolving."
"some of us lag behind the adva gree with everything he says about morality, but i do agree with the core of what he says.
said in his books. However, even in this video, we see that morality
in his view only depends on society and the ideas of society change
from time to time. So something considered good in one society can
be declared bad in another. So there is no concept of an action being
absolutely morally good or evil. It all depends on the majority view of
society at the time.
25 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsyou shouldn't trust what people say about their rivals, especially if they're creationists.
In the other video the speaker was talking about what Dawkins had
said in his books. However, even in this video, we see that morality
in his view only depends on society and the ideas of society change
from time to time. So something considered good in one society can
be declared bad in another. So there is no concept of an action being
absolutely morally good or evil. It all depends on the majority view of
society at the time.
dawkins did say social morals are evolving, ergo they are not absolute. but on the other hand, he also says that there is a genetic link to altruism and empathy which favors survivability in some species, in particular (but not limited to), social species.
the theory of evolution predicts that we should expect to find some standard of morality in all social species, and we do.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI did not know evolution could predict anything. I thought it was all suppose
you shouldn't trust what people say about their rivals, especially if they're creationists.
dawkins did say social morals are evolving, ergo they are not absolute. but on the other hand, he also says that there is a genetic link to altruism and empathy which favors survivability in some species, in particular (but not limited to), social species.
t ...[text shortened]... icts that we should expect to find some standard of morality in all social species, and we do.
to have began by random chance and continues that way with an occasional
input from natural selection (adaptation) due to environment changes.