Rusty Nails
Country Member
McCarthy and Stone ghettoes are nothing to do with morals, just profits.
Sandi Toksvig v Justin Welby
- Thread starter cookiemonster
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
McCarthy and Stone ghettoes are nothing to do with morals, just profits.
Rusty Nails
Country Member
I would not want to go on a ride with the sort of people who would want me to go on a ride with them.
Fab Foodie
Legendary Member
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
What happens though when two sets of innate values contradict each other, as is the case in the Anglican church? How do you know who has got it right? I know I am (uncharacteristically
) being a bit of pain on this, but pretty well everyone here thinks homosexuality is morally OK and I am wrong to think otherwise, but how do they all know I have got it wrong?Everyone, including Anwers in Genesis, believers in evolution in the sense of change within species over time.
It takes more faith, in my opinion, to believe that everything has a common ancestor and that life evolved out of inanimate matter. That mind-numbing complexity could organise itself for no purpose. The universe looks designed, and the earth in particular designed for life, so at a minimum it doesn't seen unreasonable to argue it may have been designed.
Ian H
Legendary Member
What happens though when two sets of innate values contradict each other, as is the case in the Anglican church? How do you know who has got it right? I know I am (uncharacteristically
Everyone, including Anwers in Genesis, believers in evolution in the sense of change within species over time.
It takes more faith, in my opinion, to believe that everything has a common ancestor and that life evolved out of inanimate matter. That mind-numbing complexity could organise itself for no purpose. The universe looks designed, and the earth in particular designed for life, so at a minimum it doesn't seen unreasonable to argue it may have been designed.
That's a very human response, because we appear to have an innate ability to see patterns and causality where science says there are none.
mudsticks
Squire
What happens though when two sets of innate values contradict each other, as is the case in the Anglican church? How do you know who has got it right? I know I am (uncharacteristically
Everyone, including Anwers in Genesis, believers in evolution in the sense of change within species over time.
It takes more faith, in my opinion, to believe that everything has a common ancestor and that life evolved out of inanimate matter. That mind-numbing complexity could organise itself for no purpose. The universe looks designed, and the earth in particular designed for life, so at a minimum it doesn't seen unreasonable to argue it may have been designed.
Not that difficult really to discern right from wrong here..
What are the consequences of telling people who are LGBTQ+ that they are wrong, telling them they are sinful, persecuting them, and treating them as 'less wholesome' than others..??
Depression, feelings of self loathing, the legitimising of violence against the person, up to and including death by violence, persecution and bigotry, and diminished lives for those peoples families, and society in general.
Versus lives lived with honesty , freedom, love and understanding, and personal fulfilment, which can in turn lead to benefits to society...
If Sandi had felt she'd had to hide away, and was a 'wrong' person we wouldn't enjoy her pithy wit and humour.
Being LGBTQ+ is not a 'lifestyle choice' as so many prejudiced people seem to suggest
It's how a proportion of the population is born..
Who are you, or anyone to deny any person their right to be their whole loving selves, or even invite persecution, when they're not harming any one else, by being themselves ?
To try to make them feel bad for it.
That persecution seems far more 'sintul' or 'wrong'
Of course the universe and all its beautiful wonders seems 'designed' to us.
Our human brains have evolved within that marvellous beauty and complexity, it's why we are generally happy in places of great natural beauty
We do right to marvel, and be astonished at it..
What saddens me is how little care this supposedly 'advanced species' man has cared to look after any of it.
Instead man has exploited despoiled, and trashed the very beauty and wonder upon which his life depends..
That's definitely a 'wrong' massively overlooked by the 'Christian' church..
In favour of the idea of 'Man Having Dominion'
AuroraSaab
Squire
What happens though when two sets of innate values contradict each other, as is the case in the Anglican church? How do you know who has got it right? I know I am (uncharacteristically
Everyone, including Anwers in Genesis, believers in evolution in the sense of change within species over time.
It takes more faith, in my opinion, to believe that everything has a common ancestor and that life evolved out of inanimate matter. That mind-numbing complexity could organise itself for no purpose. The universe looks designed, and the earth in particular designed for life, so at a minimum it doesn't seen unreasonable to argue it may have been designed.
I'd say that we come to a concensus about morality usually. As we move away from having that morality being imposed (whether by the Church or other faith, customs and traditions, or by a secular government) we now ask - is it harmful? Does it hurt others? Should it just be an individual freedom or does it harm the wider 'greater good' of society?
With homosexuality we had that discussion in the UK from around the '50's onwards. And the (eventual) concensus was that it didn't impinge on the rights of others and thus there was no need to legislate about it. Obviously people are free to have their own private thoughts about it, whether informed by religion, culture, or whatever.
So I suppose the answer about what happens when moral values clash is that we examine that and come to a concensus as a society. And if you don't agree you are free to follow your conscience, or even agitate for change, as long as you do it within the law.
As to the Argument from Design, I agree it's very compelling. As they say, if you found a beautiful, intricate pocket watch on the ground it would be hard to imagine that it appeared out of nowhere. Surely there must have been a Watchmaker? I think though, as we come to understand just how old the planet is, and how evolution developed over hundreds of millions of years, many of the Watchmaker questions have been answered. Some haven't of course.
FishFright
Well-Known Member
The best thing about having god on your side is that you can be as hateful as you like as long as you add "god is love" somewhere.
qigong chimp
Settler of gobby hash.
All uphill
Well-Known Member
Evolution starts to give us answers to how everything got to be here; new details are uncovered weekly and the theory can be tested to a degree.What happens though when two sets of innate values contradict each other, as is the case in the Anglican church? How do you know who has got it right? I know I am (uncharacteristically
Everyone, including Anwers in Genesis, believers in evolution in the sense of change within species over time.
It takes more faith, in my opinion, to believe that everything has a common ancestor and that life evolved out of inanimate matter. That mind-numbing complexity could organise itself for no purpose. The universe looks designed, and the earth in particular designed for life, so at a minimum it doesn't seen unreasonable to argue it may have been
The use of god or gods as an explanation is really no explanation, but a statement of faith. How did god come into being? Where is the repeatable experiment that demonstrates or indicates its existence?
As for morality I think that a humane society tries to restrict others just as much as is needed for us to exist in peace and freedom, and no further. In other words if my sexual and social activities hurt others then there is an argument for society intervening minimally. If I am hurting no one I would hope most people would celebrate that.
fozy tornip
At the controls of my private jet.
Where is the repeatable experiment proving that explaining things is the only game in town?
The reification of repeatable experiment is really no explanation but a statement of faith.
Evolutionary process doesn't give a fig for the 'truths' generated by repeatable experiment, doesn't recognise humanity any more than a cloud knows that for a fleeting moment it was shaped like a camel. The gametes of fundamentalist creationists, devout Roman Catholics and Muslims and Jews aren't enfeebled by the beliefs of their parent organisms.
Dawkins secular scientism works a treat in this environment - his 'fitness' sees him grow strong and successful and his reproductive opportunities multiply - but had he been raised and defended his theories in a fundamentalist Muslim set up his reproductive opportunities would have been severely curtailed. Believing evolutionary theory best 'saves the appearances' can be an evolutionary dead end.
Earliest traces of Homo sapiens approx 300,000 years ago. What age are we giving scientific method as we currently understand it?
Last edited:
Rusty Nails
Country Member
What happens though when two sets of innate values contradict each other, as is the case in the Anglican church? How do you know who has got it right? I know I am (uncharacteristically
Not every issue in the world can be reduced to a binary right/wrong, as there may be myriads of variations or caveats to each issue. It is simplistic and a
I prefer to let these issues be decided by society, even if I may disagree with the views of that society, and can accept that those views change through history as society changes.
Last edited:
Fab Foodie
Legendary Member
icowden
Squire
On the surface this is a fair point.What happens though when two sets of innate values contradict each other, as is the case in the Anglican church? How do you know who has got it right? I know I am (uncharacteristically
However...
You are perfectly entitled to think that homosexuality is wrong, is a sin etc. I don't have a problem with that. You are entitled to your beliefs and equally I am entitled to debate my opinion with you. Neither of us has to be right.
Where I *do* have a problem however is that religion isn't just about what you believe - it's about going out and telling everyone else who thinks that your old man with superpowers on a cloud is right, everyone else is wrong and that if they disagree with you they should be stoned / banned / imprisoned / executed etc.
Fundamentalist religion says that everything in a Religious text is true, even if that text is non-explicit and contradictory. Christianity is supposed to be about love
it just turns out that Jesus forgot to list the terms and conditions, or he was really bad at "loving you".
