Joe Rogan isnt sold on the Bing Bang theory finds Jesus resurrection more plausible

[Crazy Source]

@Bob Gray That is ChatGPT

 

[Crazy Source]

I can grasp the beneficial aspect of pack animals protecting their own relatives and pack, but they're not doing it for moral reasons, they're doing it because there's strength in numbers. An animal can inflict the most grizzly death you can imagine on another animal or even human, and we pass no judgement on that animal because we don't hold them to the same standards that we hold humans, why is this part complicated for you to grasp.

Humans today have the exact same brain capacity that humans from 5000 years ago had, yet enslaving others, sacrificing children, and filleting people alive was widely accepted, so where was our capacity to relate to others back then?

Whether you like to admit it or not, and whether you're a practising Christian or not, you think a certain way in large part thanks to Judeo-Christian values. You can still go to many place in the world today where these values have not taken hold, and you can still find all types of acts that you or I would consider immoral, cruel and unfair.

As for supernatural, as was the initial point of this topic, a big bang out of nothing for no reason or purpose sounds more supernatural than anything in the Bible.

NOPE. That is AI. You did not type that and you surely didn't think it out.

 

[Koro_11]

What does "OK" even mean? Are you asking what I personally think is moral?

If your position is that morals are whatever enough people can agree on at the time, then I'm just curious if you think it would be just as well if most people decided tomorrow that we should bring back slavery, or start practising sharia law worldwide?

My position is that morals are something universal that humans can not change, and they are not decided by humans because humans can and have decided a lot of different and conflicting things throughout history. I believe there is an overarching truth and set of morals that cannot be changed on a whim by whatever humans happen to be in charge of how things are done.

 

[shockaholic12]

I can grasp the beneficial aspect of pack animals protecting their own relatives and pack, but they're not doing it for moral reasons, they're doing it because there's strength in numbers. An animal can inflict the most grizzly death you can imagine on another animal or even human, and we pass no judgement on that animal because we don't hold them to the same standards that we hold humans, why is this part complicated for you to grasp.

Humans today have the exact same brain capacity that humans from 5000 years ago had, yet enslaving others, sacrificing children, and filleting people alive was widely accepted, so where was our capacity to relate to others back then?

Whether you like to admit it or not, and whether you're a practising Christian or not, you think a certain way in large part thanks to Judeo-Christian values. You can still go to many place in the world today where these values have not taken hold, and you can still find all types of acts that you or I would consider immoral, cruel and unfair.

As for supernatural, as was the initial point of this topic, a big bang out of nothing for no reason or purpose sounds more supernatural than anything in the Bible.

You’re arguing a moral act cannot have any benefits to the creature carrying it out or it then becomes selfish. That’s silly. Sharing with my neighbor is not moral if I think it might make it more likely he’ll share with me? That’s nonsense.

Yes, repeating the practice of finding shared preferences and analyzing the results over 5,000 led to us being better at it as we went. So what?

 

[heloder]

And if Islam gets spread across the globe and sharia law becomes the norm everywhere because enough people agree that's the new moral code, will it be ok then?

There is no universal ethics code, so yeah, it's decided by the society in question. Thousands of years ago it was "okay" to toss innocent people into volcanoes to appease the gods. In some parts of the world it's "okay" to marry and impregnate 13 year old girls. Slavery. Genocide. You name it, and at some point there was a religious society that thought it was perfectly fine.

In most cases, these were the early, and most unadulterated forms of religious society. It's the more progressive, liberal, and secular parts of society that has dragged (and continues to drag) religion out of those dark ages (that's not to say secular societies don't commit atrocities, but I digress).

The fact is, not only are we not far removed from those days, but these things still happen constantly. That does not bode well for your thesis. Do you believe the widely accepted consensus about the timeline regarding human evolution? Or do you believe that we were just plopped onto Earth as we stand now (genetically)?

I believe the former, and I believe our ethics and morality have evolved along those lines. As societies become more democratic, more groups of people have a say in how that society functions. The end result of this is a more emotionally intelligent society where fewer people are subjugated and abused (especially in diverse countries such as ours). But this is a constant struggle, which minority groups are still seeing to this day in various countries, including the US.

Asking a member of a modern democratic society if they think another society's moral codes are "ok" is meaningless. The nature of an Islamist extremist is hardly different from you or I. The nurture is where we diverge. If you took a baby from that society and raised them in ours, they would likely feel as you or I do. If you took a baby from ours and raised them there, they'd likely feel as the people in that society do.

This is completely contrary to the point you're seemingly trying to make, which is that human beings are special, godly creatures with a certain set of morals and ethics.

 

[Koro_11]

You’re arguing a moral act cannot have any benefits to the creature carrying it out or it then becomes selfish. That’s silly. Sharing with my neighbor is not moral if I think it might make it more likely he’ll share with me? That’s nonsense.

Yes, repeating the practice of finding shared preferences and analyzing the results over 5,000 led to us being better at it as we went. So what?

Instead of talking in circles just answer one simple question for me:

Is there such a thing as morality or no in your opinion?

 

[Koro_11]

There is no universal ethics code, so yeah, it's decided by the society in question. Thousands of years ago it was "okay" to toss innocent people into volcanoes to appease the gods. In some parts of the world it's "okay" to marry and impregnate 13 year old girls. Slavery. Genocide. You name it, and at some point there was a religious society that thought it was perfectly fine.

In most cases, these were the early, and most unadulterated forms of religious society. It's the more progressive, liberal, and secular parts of society that has dragged (and continues to drag) religion out of those dark ages (that's not to say secular societies don't commit atrocities, but I digress).

The fact is, not only are we not far removed from those days, but these things still happen constantly. That does not bode well for your thesis. Do you believe the widely accepted consensus about the timeline regarding human evolution? Or do you believe that we were just plopped onto Earth as we stand now (genetically)?

I believe the former, and I believe our ethics and morality have evolved along those lines. As societies become more democratic, more groups of people have a say in how that society functions. The end result of this is a more emotionally intelligent society where fewer people are subjugated and abused (especially in diverse countries such as ours). But this is a constant struggle, which minority groups are still seeing to this day in various countries, including the US.

Asking a member of a modern democratic society if they think another society's moral codes are "ok" is meaningless. The nature of an Islamist extremist is hardly different from you or I. The nurture is where we diverge. If you took a baby from that society and raised them in ours, they would likely feel as you or I do. If you took a baby from ours and raised them there, they'd likely feel as the people in that society do.

This is completely contrary to the point you're seemingly trying to make, which is that human beings are special, godly creatures with a certain set of morals and ethics.

I agree with a lot of that, but at the end of the day you either believe that there is a universal set of morals humans should abide by or you don't.

I believe the case for most of you arguing with me is that yes you do believe it, but refuse to concede this because you don't like the implications of that claim.

You acknowledge that a lot of immoral stuff is still going on in many parts of the world, and I believe somewhere deep inside you know it's morally wrong.

You're most likely a decent Christian, even if you don't think of yourself as one.

 

[shockaholic12]

Instead of talking in circles just answer one simple question for me:

Is there such a thing as morality or no in your opinion?

Sure.

Now you answer this question.

If I act with kindness, caring, or compassion towards another being but also have the knowledge my act of kindness carries potential benefit to the social structure I exist in the future, is my act moral still?

You are claiming if any good act benefits a society it’s not moral. That’s ridiculous

 

[Bob Gray]

@Bob Gray That is ChatGPT

Huh?

 

[heloder]

I agree with a lot of that, but at the end of the day you either believe that there is a universal set of morals humans should abide by or you don't.

I believe the case for most of you arguing with me is that yes you do believe it, but refuse to concede this because you don't like the implications of that claim.

You acknowledge that a lot of immoral stuff is still going on in many parts of the world, and I believe somewhere deep inside you know it's morally wrong.

You're most likely a decent Christian, even if you don't think of yourself as one.

I do not believe there's a universal set of morals humans should abide by. In fact, I think it's kind of a ludicrous statement, because even if you just stick with the US alone, morals have changed over the last 50 years. 50 years ago gay people were largely ostracized. Today they're largely accepted. 100 years ago black people were largely ostracized. Today they're largely accepted. 200 years ago atheists were largely ostracized. Today they're largely accepted.

Morals and ethics are constantly evolving. Right now transgender people are largely ostracized. In the future they will almost certainly be largely accepted. It's the way of the world, particularly in a progressive, secular, democratic society. And it is for the better.

I do have my morals and ethics, and I absolutely abhor Sharia law, as well as many, many other aspects of various religious beliefs. I believe that even though you may think your morals are unassailable and permanent, had you been born 200 years in the past or 200 years in the future, they would look very different.

Thanks for the great discussions in this thread, by the way.

 

[Koro_11]

Sure.

Now you answer this question.

If I act with kindness, caring, or compassion towards another being but also have the knowledge my act of kindness carries potential benefit to the social structure I exist in the future, is my act moral still?

You are claiming if any good act benefits a society it’s not moral. That’s ridiculous

Of course your acts are still moral if they benefit society, in fact that's a feature of moral not a bug.

You misunderstood if you think I'm trying to make the case that what's beneficial to society is not moral, not at all my position.

 

[Koro_11]

I do not believe there's a universal set of morals humans should abide by. In fact, I think it's kind of a ludicrous statement, because even if you just stick with the US alone, morals have changed over the last 50 years. 50 years ago gay people were largely ostracized. Today they're largely accepted. 100 years ago black people were largely ostracized. Today they're largely accepted. 200 years ago atheists were largely ostracized. Today they're largely accepted.

Morals and ethics are constantly evolving. Right now transgender people are largely ostracized. In the future they will almost certainly be largely accepted. It's the way of the world, particularly in a progressive, secular, democratic society. And it is for the better.

I do have my morals and ethics, and I absolutely abhor Sharia law, as well as many, many other aspects of various religious beliefs. I believe that even though you may think your morals are unassailable and permanent, had you been born 200 years in the past or 200 years in the future, they would look very different.

Thanks for the great discussions in this thread, by the way.

They're not always evolving, it's more like a stock chart, there are times where it goes up, and then there are times when it plummets. I would argue that we're worse off now than say 30 years ago, and who knows what will be in the future.

I don't think transgender people are ostracized, I have as much compassion for people who are actually confused about their gender as I do for anyone else suffering any other mental disorder. The problem with that one is that for every person who is genuinely confused about their gender, there will be countless criminals, perverts, and narcissists who will use it to their advantage to manipulate the system, get an advantage in sports competitions, or put actual women in dangerous and uncomfortable situations or worse.

I don't know how my morals would look 200 or 2000 years ago, and it's not like I think I have all the answers now, but I do think that there is a purpose to our lives that goes beyond just the material, and I think society functions better overall if they all more or less share the same values.

 

[shockaholic12]

Of course your acts are still moral if they benefit society, in fact that's a feature of moral not a bug.

You misunderstood if you think I'm trying to make the case that what's beneficial to society is not moral, not at all my position.

Every time I have pointed out an intelligent pack animal acting with care towards another in its social structure you’ve screeched that it doesn’t count as moral because it benefits their society.

Now you’ve done a 180 and saying of course it counts and that’s a feature of it. So i guess I convinced you lol.

You’re pointing out how moral acts can be positive traits to social animals social structures. You even called them features. If that’s true nature doesn’t need any supernatural intervention to make social animals inclined to them does it?

 

[Crazy Source]

Instead of talking in circles just answer one simple question for me:

Is there such a thing as morality or no in your opinion?

It is inherently in us. We are born with it. We grow. When we see others like us hurt, we feel it. Do you need to be told what is right? That is what you are saying? We need a book to tell us it is wrong to kill and rape?

 

[Koro_11]

Every time I have pointed out an intelligent pack animal acting with care towards another in its social structure you’ve screeched that it doesn’t count as moral because it benefits their society.

Now you’ve done a 180 and saying of course it counts and that’s a feature of it. So i guess I convinced you lol.

You’re pointing out how moral acts can be positive traits to social animals social structures. You even called them features. If that’s true nature doesn’t need any supernatural intervention to make social animals inclined to them does it?

Not at all, I just said that doing something that’s beneficial to you or your group isn’t necessarily moral.

 

[shockaholic12]

Not at all, I just said that doing something that’s beneficial to you or your group isn’t necessarily moral.

I didn’t say doing something, I said doing something caring. Don’t move the goal posts

You agree animals can care for another.

You agree that a caring act can benefit their society and be moral still.

So you agree an animals caring act can be moral even if it benefits their society.

That’s you now agreeing with me.

 

[Koro_11]

I didn’t say doing something, I said doing something caring. Don’t move the goal posts

You agree animals can care for another.

You agree that a caring act can benefit their society and be moral still.

So you agree an animals caring act can be moral even if it benefits their society.

That’s you now agreeing with me.

That’s a no on the first question, which means it’s a no on every follow up question by default.

NO, I don’t think animals “care”.

 

[shockaholic12]

That’s a no on the first question, which means it’s a no on every follow up question by default.

NO, I don’t think animals “care”.

Animal can’t provide care for another?

Not trying to be a dick but that’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a minute. Ever heard of caring for their young?

Care (verb)
look after and provide for the needs of.

A caring act is an act that provides for others. Obviously animals are capable of this. And caring acts are moral. Since you stated that a caring act being a benefit to society doesn’t stop it from being moral the logic follows animals can be moral.

Care
(Verb)

feel concern or interest; attach importance to something.

Why would an animal risk its life to protect another in its social circle if it was not capable of feeling concern, interest, or attach any importance to it? You’re not making any sense here

Putting the word in quotes doesn’t change what it means.

 

[shockaholic12]

But his truth bombs weren't about the nature of the universe itself, and much if his work has been superseded by more current and more sophisticated theories and models, including mathematics and calculus. It doesn't mean Newtonw was an idiot, it just means he did the best with what he could, and much of what he says is rooted in empirical, observational criteria. But, as often is the case, as a scientist he makes leaps or assumptions and then works from those.

People are quick to point out that one of the greatest strengths of science is that it's always changing because we learn more and more. Thats true. But it also means it's usually wrong in some way. Thats fine, and in fact necessary. But, if we're being honest, the more we move away from immediately observable, repeatable criteria, the less concrete the science becomes, even when it's rooted in mathematics. Like I brought up with the Ptolomy model. It was completely rooted in a concept that was utterly and completely wrong. And yet it was able to accurately make predictions about the placement of rhe planets, stars, etc. Because the greatest minds of the time worked with what they knew, but that doesn't mean they were correct, even when they made accurate, predictive models. And the more you move away from immediately observable, repeatable experimentation, the more assumptions you have to make, by design. Going back billions of years is one of those times.

It kind if reminds me of when Lawrence Krause wrote about how the universe came into existence out of nothing. He basically sidestepped the question by replacing nothing with a quantum vacuum and argued they were the same thing. But I remember he said something along the lines of how in billions of years such and such would happen. And it just seemed like such a useless prediction, since its impossible to prove.

Yes, his science regarded the universe. What are you even trying to say? He was observing the happenings of some other universe?

Yes much of it is still applied today. 350 some odd years later. Just as much of ours will apply hundred of years from now too. No one calls it silly

 

[Bob Gray]

Yes, his science regarded the universe. What are you even trying to say? He was observing the happenings of some other universe?

Yes much of it is still applied today. 350 some odd years later. Just as much of ours will apply hundred of years from now too.

I mean mathematics, calculus and even gravity aren't quite rhe same thing as the Big Bang.

Yes, much if it is, I didn't say otherwise. But I said much if it has changed over time with new understand. Thats how it works. But it also means a great deal of what he said and thought was not accurate.

We're talking about accurately predicting an event that happened 15 billion years ago. Its not a stretch to say the concepts about the universe 15 billion years ago are likely at least as flawed as the concepts of this one planet a couple hundred years ago.