Evidence for God from Science

im·mis·ci·ble [ i mí­ssəb'l ]


adjective

Definition:

incapable of becoming homogenous: describes two or more liquids that will not mix together to form a single homogeneous substance


[Late 17th century. < late Latin immiscibilis "not subject to mixing" < Latin miscere "to mix"]

Ok so I seemed to have lost my train of thought on this matter somewhere between Philosophy of Science and the History of the Enlightenment but I'll respond to what I can...

So moral ideas are just conventions? They are no more than mores, or 'habits'?

Well it seems that way considering their tendency to be modified over time as society pro or regresses depending on your point of view.

I don't. Before marriage was desacralized and 'made a mockery of' as you say, 'homosexual marriage' was simply a contradiction in terms, and it should become one again.

Agree to disagree on this one. Homosexuals should have no less rights than any other human. We abolished slavery but still place restrictions on homosexuals...it just doesn't seem right in a modern society.

See what I mean? Apparently, the majority decides what is good and what is evil.

I think this is the point I'm trying to get at. And the majority is clearly not the atheist population. (whether or not I agree with the majority will affect how I am able to function in that society)

What if, in a hundred years, our society declares that the prohibition on incest belonged to a bygone age? Would that be right? Would that be right for that time?

Well the normal answer would be "of course not" but there are other issues with incest that make it unacceptable. If incest did not pose such serious ramifications to possible offspring then maybe the answer would not be so definite.

Greed, and seeing the blacks as lesser beings. At one point, the question arose if blacks did even have a soul. I'm not saying that Christians have always acted morally, but that they have a basis for morality which they can appeal to. On what ground do you reject slavery?

On the grounds that I know I am no better or worse than a black man. Preventing his growth socially, economically and intellectually is criminal. Having respect for other cultures. Being technologically advanced does not equal superiority. (removing them from their homeland was criminal enough, not allowing them to move up in the economic and social ladder when they were freed was disgustingly cruel)

A lot less acceptable, since in that case sexual relations between a man of 44 and a woman of 40 would be considered pedophilia.

Yet we will jail and ruin the reputation of an 18 year old who chooses to have sexual relations with a 17 year old. Doesn't make much sense. If an 18 year old marries a 15 year old is it then acceptable? The line is not as distinct as we would like it to be.

When it's a life/death matter over something stupid like that, very well. But I can also come up with an example that's more conceivable. At school, a teacher asks a pupil whether he has done his homework. He will get detention if he hasn't. If he says he has, he can get out of the situation without harming the teacher, his fellow pupils or anyone else. So what should he say?

No. At least that's what I would say but I am known among friends to be brutally honest. Again this is situational. Say I were living in Nazi Germany after they had been successful in exterminating all of the Jews and winning WW2. During the war I had been helping Jews leave the country by hiding them in my house. One day (post war) the police come to my door and ask if I had been helping Jews leave the country during the war. If I am honest and say yes I will certainly die but if I lie I can continue running my doughnut shoppe and live...what would you do? Let's say the punishment would not be death but exile from the country and a sentence to live on gristle for the rest of your life? Same answer? I know I would have the same answer.

There were many people who functioned in Nazi Germany, by the way.

And there were many who functioned in the U.S. prior to 1865 and in Europe prior to 1833.

You just said observers determined whether your ideas were right or wrong. In other words, you only determine what is right or wrong for yourself, and you want others to do the same and not push morality. But as to what is really right or wrong, you have no choice but to remain agnostic at best. The only thing you can do is give your opinion and hope someone likes it...

I don't care how another person establishes their idea of morality. It is of no concern to me nor do I care whether or not a certain individual likes my own ideas of morality. My parents are devout Christians yet I still get along well with them. I take issue when someone tries to push their ideas of morality on others forcefully. If a Christian tells me in a polite way that my ideas of premarital sex are immoral I nod my head and thank them for their opinion. When people attempt to cram it down others throats by passing out pamphlets, parading around with signs, forceful confrontation and other means well, that I have a problem with.

Also I don't claim to be atheist nor do I claim to be agnostic. Simply non-affiliated since I find religion interesting but altogether unnecessary in my life. I choose to avoid classification since I don't necessarily agree with any side and I don't feel the need to. I'll argue with an atheist as happily as I'll argue with a Christian.

Would you agree with the statement 'You can't legislate morality'?

No. Not at all. Government does it daily.

my point is that your only basis for morality is yourself, which would mean that everyone has to determine his own morality, which would mean that no moral stance is more or less acceptable than any other. You can't call something absolutely right or wrong; you can only say you agree or disagree with it.

Yes on the first part, but acceptability is determined by society. Society will punish those who don't follow its code of morality by a variety of means. I've modified my morals based on what I was taught growing up and what is socially acceptable today.

It is therefore impossible for a state to be morally right or wrong; the only thing that matters is whether individuals, with their own ideas about morality, can function there.

Yes, in the sense that anyone can be sure about it absolutely, but I can decide based on my own views how I feel about a certain states' morality. People were able to function in Nazi Germany, as you said before, and Nazi Germany was comprised of primarily Christians. Had I been living in Nazi Germany I doubt I would have been able to function knowing how we were treating our former Jewish neighbors and friends. I would have moved to Canada or died trying to save people. At the point where Hitler took over in Germany the Christian majority should have taken some initiative in removing him from power. But perhaps they lacked some sense of morality that we would find to be critical to function in society today. (or not considering the Christian stance on homosexuality)

Here are some excellent articles which correctly demonstrate the futility of finding morality without God.

Conservatism Without God is Dead

Legislating morality

Legislating morality, Part II

These should give plenty of food for thought in a number of areas. Enjoy...

non-affiliated wrote:

Turgonian wrote:So moral ideas are just conventions? They are no more than mores, or 'habits'?

Well it seems that way considering their tendency to be modified over time as society pro or regresses depending on your point of view.

That says nothing. Either morality is universal, or it isn't. If it isn't, exterminating Jews is as valid as forbidding discrimination. If it is, then people may not accept them, but they are there nonetheless.

non-affiliated wrote:Homosexuals should have no less rights than any other human. We abolished slavery but still place restrictions on homosexuals...it just doesn't seem right in a modern society.

One: 'We use a clock to tell time, not truth.'
Two: Homosexuals can marry someone of the other sex whenever they want, so they don't have 'less rights', nor 'restrictions'.
Three: With the right, age-old definition of marriage, legislating homosexual marriage is as much an issue as allowing artists to draw square circles.

non-affiliated wrote:

Turgonian wrote:See what I mean? Apparently, the majority decides what is good and what is evil.

I think this is the point I'm trying to get at. And the majority is clearly not the atheist population. (whether or not I agree with the majority will affect how I am able to function in that society)

And in the long run, we get back to Voldemort: 'There is no good and evil. There is only power, and those to weak to seek it.' He is rather unoriginal, of course: Nietzsche said the same thing some time ago. Without universal morality, 'might is right', whether the 'might' is through terrorism or clever manipulation. (Incidentally, 'might' and 'right' are not distinguished in China; the word is the same.)

non-affiliated wrote:

Turgonian wrote:What if, in a hundred years, our society declares that the prohibition on incest belonged to a bygone age? Would that be right? Would that be right for that time?

Well the normal answer would be "of course not" but there are other issues with incest that make it unacceptable. If incest did not pose such serious ramifications to possible offspring then maybe the answer would not be so definite.

What makes you think incest is unacceptable?

non-affiliated wrote:On the grounds that I know I am no better or worse than a black man. Preventing his growth socially, economically and intellectually is criminal.

'Criminal'? According to what universal norm?

non-affiliated wrote:Having respect for other cultures. Being technologically advanced does not equal superiority. (removing them from their homeland was criminal enough, not allowing them to move up in the economic and social ladder when they were freed was disgustingly cruel)

One: Changes take time. Liberation was step one, equality was step two.
Two: Your value of 'respect' is merely cultural. A whiff of cultural change, as happened in the 30s in Germany, turns everything upside down. And you can't even call it really evil...

non-affiliated wrote:

Turgonian wrote:A lot less acceptable, since in that case sexual relations between a man of 44 and a woman of 40 would be considered pedophilia.

Yet we will jail and ruin the reputation of an 18 year old who chooses to have sexual relations with a 17 year old. Doesn't make much sense.

Not us. Dutchmen still have common sense.

non-affiliated wrote:

Turgonian wrote:When it's a life/death matter over something stupid like that, very well. But I can also come up with an example that's more conceivable. At school, a teacher asks a pupil whether he has done his homework. He will get detention if he hasn't. If he says he has, he can get out of the situation without harming the teacher, his fellow pupils or anyone else. So what should he say?

No. At least that's what I would say but I am known among friends to be brutally honest.

Good. But you can't declare that binding, can you?

non-affiliated wrote:Again this is situational. Say I were living in Nazi Germany after they had been successful in exterminating all of the Jews and winning WW2. During the war I had been helping Jews leave the country by hiding them in my house. One day (post war) the police come to my door and ask if I had been helping Jews leave the country during the war. If I am honest and say yes I will certainly die but if I lie I can continue running my doughnut shoppe and live...what would you do? Let's say the punishment would not be death but exile from the country and a sentence to live on gristle for the rest of your life? Same answer? I know I would have the same answer.

The universal commands of love and mercy (well-defined) always take precedence over the others. What I asked, was: is lying wrong in common situations to get yourself out of a tight spot? If so, why? If not, what are our schools (& our countries) going to look like?

non-affiliated wrote:

Turgonian wrote:There were many people who functioned in Nazi Germany, by the way.

And there were many who functioned in the U.S. prior to 1865 and in Europe prior to 1833.

The difference being, they weren't caught in a fascistic system which brutally suppressed other ideas. The epoch of slavery can't be equated to the Nazi epoch.
And by the way, the abolitionists were evil. After all, morality is determined by culture. If the culture says slavery is right, then it is right in that country at that time. Which means the abolitionists, who tried to obtain the opposite, were evil. When morality is dependent on culture, moral reform is evil by definition.

non-affiliated wrote:I don't care how another person establishes their idea of morality. It is of no concern to me nor do I care whether or not a certain individual likes my own ideas of morality.

Ah. But you said morality is put into legislation. In other words, morality determines politics. Is there such a thing as an evil political system?

non-affiliated wrote:My parents are devout Christians yet I still get along well with them. I take issue when someone tries to push their ideas of morality on others forcefully. If a Christian tells me in a polite way that my ideas of premarital sex are immoral I nod my head and thank them for their opinion. When people attempt to cram it down others throats by passing out pamphlets, parading around with signs, forceful confrontation and other means well, that I have a problem with.

Nonsense. 'Passing out pamphlets' and 'parading around with signs' can hardly be called 'pushing ideas forcefully'. Legislation always pushes ideas forcefully, and last I looked, using your freedom of speech to defend counter-cultural views wasn't 'cramming opinions down others' throats'.

non-affiliated wrote:

Turgonian wrote:My point is that your only basis for morality is yourself, which would mean that everyone has to determine his own morality, which would mean that no moral stance is more or less acceptable than any other. You can't call something absolutely right or wrong; you can only say you agree or disagree with it.

Yes on the first part, but acceptability is determined by society. Society will punish those who don't follow its code of morality by a variety of means. I've modified my morals based on what I was taught growing up and what is socially acceptable today.

Once again: might is right. What society says is true. If you don't agree with something really important, you'll be punished because you disturb the peace and the order.
Sounds stifling...