- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Oct 05
What is it that gives a human being value?
I quote Jerry Solomon:
"A friend of mine recently told me of a conversation he had with a good friend we will call Joe. Joe is a doctor. He is not a Christian. This is how the conversation went: "Joe, you're an excellent doctor. You care deeply about your patients. Why do you care so much for people since you believe we have evolved by chance? What gives us value?" Joe was stunned by the question and couldn't answer it. His worldview had taken a blow."
How does your worldview explain this question?
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerMy worldview doesn't bother addressing one sided conversations
What is it that gives a human being value?
I quote Jerry Solomon:
"A friend of mine recently told me of a conversation he had with a good friend we will call Joe. Joe is a doctor. He is not a Christian. This is how the conversation went: "Joe, you're an excellent doctor. You care deeply about your patients. Why do you care so much for people sinc ...[text shortened]... answer it. His worldview had taken a blow."
How does your worldview explain this question?
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerJoe was probably stunned because he just realized his "friend" was a wacko fundie. He was probably pondering whether or not to say, "Don't ever call me again."
What is it that gives a human being value?
I quote Jerry Solomon:
"A friend of mine recently told me of a conversation he had with a good friend we will call Joe. Joe is a doctor. He is not a Christian. This is how the conversation went: "Joe, you're an excellent doctor. You care deeply about your patients. Why do you care so much for people sinc ...[text shortened]... answer it. His worldview had taken a blow."
How does your worldview explain this question?
20 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerPeople really don't have value. Human beings are conditioned by genetics and society to think they have; i.e. it's a survival mechanism/trait.
What is it that gives a human being value?
I quote Jerry Solomon:
"A friend of mine recently told me of a conversation he had with a good friend we will call Joe. Joe is a doctor. He is not a Christian. This is how the conversation went: "Joe, you're an excellent doctor. You care deeply about your patients. Why do you care so much for people sinc ...[text shortened]... answer it. His worldview had taken a blow."
How does your worldview explain this question?
LH
PS - Obviously not my actual position, but just what I think a reasonable atheist evolutionist would say.
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerSince you are neither an atheist or an evolutionist, and you 'reasonableness' is highly questionable, you have absolutely no clue how I (and I presume others) feel. This was clearly defined in Lemon Jello's 'absurdity' thread.
People really don't have value. Human beings are conditioned by genetics and society to think they have; i.e. it's a survival mechanism/trait.
LH
PS - Obviously not my actual position, but just what I think a reasonable atheist evolutionist would say.
20 Oct 05
3 edits
Originally posted by David CIf what you feel is different from what I said, then please express it.
Since you are neither an atheist or an evolutionist, and you 'reasonableness' is highly questionable, you have absolutely no clue how I (and I presume others) feel. This was clearly defined in Lemon Jello's 'absurdity' thread.
What, in your opinion, gives people objective value (as opposed to the subjective value we assign to people based on our genetics and society)?
EDIT: Many atheists I know personally hold this viewpoint, as does at least one atheist on this forum (I think it's Palynka - but I'm not sure). As I said, if your viewpoint differs, then tell us how. All you've done is post an ad hominem.
EDIT2: LJ's "absurdity thread" deals with the is-ought fallacy in Craig's reasoning that places a burden of proof on evolutionists with respect to "might is right" morality. This has no correlation to whether a theist (or an atheist, for that matter) has a "clue" about how an atheist (or theist) will feel. In other words, the reference is irrelevant here.
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerWordgames. If by 'objective value' you mean 'the value "god" assigns by creating us', then nothing. If by 'objective value' you mean the theory of our evolution on the third rock from this particular star, then assign the probability of our existence to that as 'objective value'. It's a pretty high value.
If what you feel is different from what I said, then please express it.
What, in your opinion, gives people objective value (as opposed to the subjective value we assign to people based on our genetics and society)?
EDIT: Many atheists I know personally hold this viewpoint, as does at least one atheist on this forum (I think it's ...[text shortened]... " about how an atheist (or theist) will feel. In other words, the reference is irrelevant here.
Having said that, 'value' is meaningless as an objective idea. You are simply subjectively interpreting our 'value' based on your notion of a creator. I'm doing the same, although our creator in my interpretation is the Sun.
LJ's "absurdity thread" deals with the is-ought fallacy in Craig's reasoning
The thread I referenced demonstrates (IMO) that the notion of 'objective value' as defined by theists like Craig are nonsense.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by David CI'm doing the same, although our creator in my interpretation is the Sun.
Wordgames. If by 'objective value' you mean 'the value "god" assigns by creating us', then nothing. If by 'objective value' you mean the theory of our evolution on the third rock from this particular star, then assign the probability of our existence to that as 'objective value'. It's a pretty high value.
Having said that, 'value' is meaningl ...[text shortened]... ates (IMO) that the notion of 'objective value' as defined by theists like Craig are nonsense.
Tell me, who created the sun? Or do you think it is eternal?
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhat, dj2. Stars are created by a what, not a who. It has also been demonstrated that this star is burning out (giving its' life so that we may live, have you heard that one before?), and will eventually become smaller, cooler and redder. It won't happen for billions of years, though. So no, not eternal...unless you define 'eternal' as just a really, really long time.
[b]I'm doing the same, although our creator in my interpretation is the Sun.
Tell me, who created the sun? Or do you think it is eternal?[/b]
20 Oct 05
3 edits
Originally posted by David CIf by 'objective value' you mean the theory of our evolution on the third rock from this particular star, then assign the probability of our existence to that as 'objective value'.
Wordgames. If by 'objective value' you mean 'the value "god" assigns by creating us', then nothing. If by 'objective value' you mean the theory of our evolution on the third rock from this particular star, then assign the probability of our existence to that as 'objective value'. It's a pretty high value.
Having said that, 'value' is meaningl ...[text shortened]... ates (IMO) that the notion of 'objective value' as defined by theists like Craig are nonsense.
It follows then, from this definition of objective value, that the life of an infant, or a handicapped person, or a mentally retarded human being is objectively less valuable than that of a healthy adult human being - right? (In fact, the objective value - in terms of survival/existence probability - of the classes of people mentioned above would be less than that of many animals and plants as well).
The obvious follow-up question - how does your subjective value of human life correlate to the objective value you've defined above?
Having said that, 'value' is meaningless as an objective idea.
How is this any different from what I said in my previous post ("People really don't have [objective] value" )?
You chided me for presuming to know what a reasonable atheist would feel about the value of human life; but it seems to me that your view of human life is no different from the one I stated (and I'm sure you think you are a reasonable atheist).
The thread I referenced demonstrates (IMO) that the notion of 'objective value' as defined by theists like Craig are nonsense.
It does nothing of the sort. All it does is point out that Craig is making a logical fallacy when he asserts that evolutionists are constrained to define human value in terms of evolutionary survival (the is-ought fallacy).
Based on the definition you gave for objective value above, it seems you have defined objective value for human life exactly as Craig thought you (an evolutionist) would.
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt follows then, from this definition of objective value
[b]If by 'objective value' you mean the theory of our evolution on the third rock from this particular star, then assign the probability of our existence to that as 'objective value'.
It follows then, from this definition of objective value, that the life of an infant, or a handicapped person, or a mentally retarded human being is objective ...[text shortened]... ave defined objective value for human life exactly as Craig thought you (an evolutionist) would.[/b]
No, it does not. Although some (some, not all) might feel that way, I personally do not. I also do not believe that your god exists. It is in my nature as a human to subjectively sympathize with the other humans that are here with me. I might feel differently if I was a lion.
How is this any different from what I said in my previous post ("People really don't have [objective] value" )?
You might as well be saying (People really don't have [purple monkey dishwasher]).
(and I'm sure you think you are a reasonable atheist).
Frankly, I think of myself as a partially insane agnostic. But with a good heart!
It does nothing of the sort. All it does is point out that Craig is making a logical fallacy when he asserts that evolutionists are constrained to define human value in terms of evolutionary survival (the is-ought fallacy).
It does everything of the sort. What do you think the conclusion of Craig's fallacy is?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by David CStars are created by a what, not a who.
What, dj2. Stars are created by a what, not a who. It has also been demonstrated that this star is burning out (giving its' life so that we may live, have you heard that one before?), and will eventually become smaller, cooler and redder. It won't happen for billions of years, though. So no, not eternal...unless you define 'eternal' as just a really, really long time.
How do you know this for sure?
So tell me then, what created the sun?
20 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat answer would merely confuse a normative question with a descriptive question. The question is not "why do humans think they have value?", but "Are humans valuable, and if so in what does this value consist?".
People really don't have value. Human beings are conditioned by genetics and society to think they have; i.e. it's a survival mechanism/trait.
LH
PS - Obviously not my actual position, but just what I think a reasonable atheist evolutionist would say.
Now, let's try to get at this question from a theist's point of view:
According to theism, in what does the value of humans consist?
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou cannot understand the points others make, until you break out of the assumptions that limit you.
So tell me then, what created the sun?
"created" implies a who, not a what.
"What created" is an example of disingenuous rhetorical question framed by a missionary.