Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 26 of 120 1 2 24 25 26 27 28 119 120
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

So, now we know what atheists believe.

I know what some atheists believe, but not all. I doubt you know much of what any atheists actually believe. The logic I employed was identical to that you employ - and no more sensical.

I wasn't speaking for atheists. I was speaking for myself. I care about some things and not about others.

The question of where individuals come from is ambiguous. "I don't know" is a far superior answer to just making stuff up.

I've never met any atheists who denied being loving, or who claimed they themselves were particularly loving or unloving.

I do not know what heaven is and I'm not sure its something desirable to bring about here on Earth. I live my life to be a better person, a better father, a better citizen. As when I go to the park, I hope to leave it a little cleaner than when I came, so too I hope to leave the Earth a little better than I found it. I have no grand wish. Just a simple one.



.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
"... I hope to leave the Earth a little better than I found it. ..."

My sentiments exactly. I could not have said it better. Thanks for sharing that. Now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that way.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 16
T
Turner Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
T
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 16
TFF, you write,
Quote:
I've never met any atheists who denied being loving, or who claimed they themselves were particularly loving or unloving.
IMO, atheists, agnostics, theists, Christians , Jews, etc., whoever, will be judged by how they live day by day, not by what they claim, verbally. Deeds, not creeds, are what is important to me How about you?

Last edited by Turner; 11/10/07 01:24 AM.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Turner wrote;
IMO, atheists, agnostics, theists, Christians , Jews, etc., whoever, will be judged by how they live day by day, not by what they claim, verbally. Deeds, not creeds, are what is important to me How about you?

Sounds inocuous enough--- but what is this 'judging' and who is doing it?

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
I happen to know Turner. We share a similar philosophy of life. When I am at his place I use his 'puter.

ABOUT THE CONCEPT, JUDGEMENT
============================
Judge, is from the Latin jus, law + dicere, say. We all accept that there are laws of science. We cannot break the law of gravity without suffering the consequences. It is said that it is impossible for us to break the law of gravity without it breaking us.

I also happen to believe that there are mental and spiritual laws. Just laws are good for us; they are not about being judgemental. Just as I want to know the laws of science so that I will live better physically, I want to know the mental and spiritual laws so that I will live better mentally and spiritually.

We know we are breaking the laws of science when we have physical disease, suffering and pain. We know we are breaking the moral laws when there is no peace of mind and joy of spirit--probably caused when we fail to love ourselves and to show love, mercy and justice to others--KEEPING THE GOLDEN LAW--including our enemies.
BTW, I believe that the GL, or rule, is found in all the great religions and philosophies.

Last edited by Revlgking; 11/10/07 06:41 PM.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Rev wrote:

"I believe that the GL, or rule, is found in all the great religions and philosophies".

And science. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. But your comments don't answer Ellis' question.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
Yeah, Rev, your comments don't really accomplish anything nor do they answer the question, sorry if that sounds harsh laugh

Yeah, how would we get judged, and by whom?

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"We know we are breaking the laws of science when we have physical disease, suffering and pain. "

Rev, if the laws of science can be broken, they are not laws.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
TerryNZ, you mean: "...but what is this 'judging' and who is doing it?"

If this is not a rhetorical question, my answer is: There is no "who". IMO, we reap in the future what we sew in the present. The spiritual law of karma makes a lot of sense, to me.

BTW, there is also what I call "the brass knuckles" rule: Do others, before they do you!

I do not recommend it as a good rule to follow, as it builds up a load of bad karma.

Last edited by Revlgking; 11/10/07 11:08 PM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
...
Rev, if the laws of science can be broken, they are not laws.
Are you sure? Please give us an example of what you mean.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: Tim
Yeah, Rev, your comments don't really accomplish anything nor do they answer the question, sorry if that sounds harsh laugh
I respect all comments--even critical ones--especially when I learn something from them. Thanks for your comments and your question.

Tim, you ask
Quote:
Yeah, how would we get judged, and by whom?
Tim, let us dialogue, not just debate, about this. I understand that you are a Christian. What are your thoughts about the nature of judgement?

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
...
Rev, if the laws of science can be broken, they are not laws.
Are you sure? Please give us an example of what you mean.


If the 2nd law of thermodynamics were actually violated, it would no longer be a law of science. Can you give an example of a law of science that was violated and remained a law?

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
[quote=Revlgking][quote=TheFallibleFiend]...
...If the 2nd law of thermodynamics were actually violated, it would no longer be a law of science. Can you give an example of a law of science that was violated and remained a law?

Obviously we are not communicating, which is so important.

If I jump off a 100 foot building--no matter how much I pray and hope--I will not float to the ground. I am subject to the law of gravity. It will break me, if I break it. Knowing the law of gravity and paying attention to it keeps me safe.

Are we communicating, yet?

BTW, I believe the same is true for moral laws. If I kill someone, I believe that I will pay for it, in one way or another, even if I am not caught by "the law", so called, of the land. Not all laws of the land are truly moral ones, IMO. Twisting the law and getting criminals "free" and some innocent convicted is what gives many lawyers bad reputations.

Last edited by Revlgking; 11/11/07 05:45 AM.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Rev wrote: We know we are breaking the laws of science when we have physical disease, suffering and pain.

Do we? Maybe the laws of science allow microbes, genes and other disease vectors the same discretion as they allow we humans. I find it repugnant to suggest that those unfortunate enough to suffer from disease should be regarded as law breakers of science law. There is no sense in that notion at all.

And I still ask the question 'Who is the judge?' There is talk of judgement--who is judging? What is the text? If the laws of science are the foundation laws, who is to be on the Defence team barracking for the microbes?---which by any natural law have a set of laws which grant them the right to exist too.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
Rev says, "Tim, let us dialogue, not just debate, about this. I understand that you are a Christian. What are your thoughts about the nature of judgement?"

Just for clarification, I would say that religiously, I do not know what I am. I am very tolerant. I beleive somewhat in relativism. I beleive people should do what is best, and that is based on two major principles: what they think and what people around them thinks. If there is a God, he would not have one specific thing that he would require every person to fulfill. A woman living in Africa is different than a Generation Me teen in southern California.

Even the concept of judgment seems to contradict itself. Or at least in our courts it does. We tell people not to judge others yet the Christian viewpoint is oftentimes, "Your'e bad because you drink," or something.

My philosophy is: MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE. That is something universal. Romans living two-thousand years ago could have helped fulfill this, Chinese traders during the medeival period could have done this, the French could have done this. And they did. And they still are. And it needs to still be done.

I do not have an answer for who this 'judge' is.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"It will break me, if I break it."
Regarding the "law of gravity." You have not broken the law of gravity. Nor has anyone else. If you or anyone else had "broken it," then it would not be a law in the scientific sense.

Now there may be laws against committing suicide by jumping of buildings (or other means). If you break those laws, you will probably be broken. But what you have broken are the laws of man, not the laws of Nature, which she, as a friend of mine once said, zealously guards.

I think there may be a very rough analogy at play here, but one should not confuse rough analogy. In no sense are moral "laws" like scientific "laws" and in no sense are they objective, verifiable or falsifiable (except, possibly, in regard to some specific goal).

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
UNDERSTANDING THE MEANING OF THE CONCEPT OF LAW
As I have discovered, even after just a brief study of the nature and function of law, it is not all that easy a topic to understand and I make now claim that all is clear to me. Check out:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/lawofnat.htm
From which I offer this short quote
Quote:
The term "natural law" is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, but the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. It does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe.

According to natural law ethical theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings. According to natural law legal theory, the authority of at least some legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards.

There are a number of different kinds of natural law theories of law, differing from each other with respect to the role that morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms.


Some philosophers even argue that there is a differnce between the "laws of nature" and the "laws of science".
http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/lawofnat.htm#H1
I offer the following quote
Quote:
1. LAWS OF NATURE vs. LAWS OF SCIENCE

In 1959, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, Michael Scriven read a paper that implicitly distinguished between Laws of Nature and Laws of Science. Laws of Science (what he at that time called "physical laws") – with few exceptions – are inaccurate, are at best approximations of the truth, and are of limited range of application. The theme has since been picked up and advanced by Nancy Cartwright.

If scientific laws are inaccurate, then – presumably – there must be some other laws (statements, propositions, principles), doubtless more complex, which are accurate, which are not approximation to the truth but are literally true.


SOME EXPERTS EVEN SUGGEST THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE CHANGING WITH TIME. Check out:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17200
Even certain fundamental constants are changing:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17200/1/pwweb1_04-03
===============================================
The only point I am trying to make is that the laws of life, known or unknown, consciously, or unconsciously, kept or broken bring consequences--for good or ill. Some judgements are for good.

Last edited by Revlgking; 11/12/07 04:26 AM.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

From the section you quoted:
"It (natural law) does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe. "
When moralists use the term "natural law" they are not (or should not) conflate what they are saying with science.


All "laws of science" are inaccurate and doomed to be at least potentially subsumed by some grander law.

From your 1st physicsworld link:
"WHAT do we mean by "the laws of nature"? The phrase evokes a set of divine and unchanging rules that transcend the "here and now" to apply everywhere and at all times in the universe. The reality is not so grand. When we refer to the laws of nature, what we are really talking about is a particular set of ideas that are striking in their simplicity, that appear to be universal and have been verified by experiment. It is thus human beings who declare that a scientific theory is a law of nature and human beings are quite often wrong."

Nevertheless, if a law is actually broken, it is no longer a law.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I agree that actions have consequences.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
TFF comments
Quote:
Nevertheless, if a law is actually broken, it is no longer a law.


So all you and I have to do to get rid of the laws against against killing and stealing is to go out and break the laws against them?

Does TFF's statement make sense to anyone? I don't think I will put this to any kind of test, soon. laugh

Last edited by Revlgking; 11/12/07 05:35 AM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Page 26 of 120 1 2 24 25 26 27 28 119 120

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5