Jump to content


Ken Gilmour

Member Since 22 May 2011
Offline Last Active Jan 28 2015 04:57 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Is God a Moral Monster?

25 May 2011 - 06:19 AM

Ok these are my last comments on the matter... I will be otherwise engaged in other things for a while...

So here we have examples from both sides. Non-qualified people creating amazing inventions, better than qualified people, and qualified people being rejected by other qualified people and ultimately going on to exceed them (there are other complexities involved here that I don't want to go into right now but I understand your point that the context is different for Acharya, but it's not very different if you try to spot all of the similarities).


It is actually very different, because the other people you've mentioned were successful and managed to prove their theories to such an extent that they were universally accepted by mainstream experts in their chosen field, while Acharya is not successful and her theories have never been accepted by any mainstream experts in her chosen field.


The similarities:

They were not successful before they had proof;
Their writings were rejected by scholars but they still stood by them;
They made very wild claims that changed the way people had been thinking for a long time beforehand, which causes serious controversy and relentless attack and embarrassment. (Ok Higgs probably wasn't attacked for his claims, but a rejection of such claims can cause embarrassment and people to question your authority on the matter). The act of perseverance even through embarrassment is what eventually gets other people to start re-thinking. You will probably think I am setting a bad example of perseverance by giving up on the topic now :)

Here's a good explanation about Moral Absolutism from Delos McKown (Disclaimer: I haven't read the book which I have linked to the name, I added the link to identify the author of the below quote as required by BTDF guidelines).


Moral absolutism is an interesting issue. Do you believe that secular humanism contains no moral absolutes whatsoever? I just need to be clear about where you stand on this issue.


I'm not sure what the absolutes that you're thinking about are. When I say I subscribe to Moral Relativity I mean I subscribe to relativity in general, being that everything is relative. e.g. Gravity is only relative to certain planets. Other parts of the universe don't have any gravity, even certain places on earth have different amounts of gravity than others (e.g. a moving rocket, or a fast moving machine), but gravity on Earth is effectively absolute.

Morality is the same. Killing is considered morally wrong, but if you're a victim of a rape or attack on your life and must defend yourself, which may require killing the attacker.

I would consider rape and cold-blooded-murder to be morally wrong relative to my emotional maturity and human intelligence, if I was an animal; rape and murder may be required in order for my species to survive. I hope humanity doesn't come to that point - ever.

I'll leave it there. Thanks for the debate. I have no doubt there will be many rebuttals on this afterward but I will not be responding to the thread any more.

In Topic: Is God a Moral Monster?

24 May 2011 - 01:34 PM

Evangelion,

Ok thank you, these are strong arguments about the lack of academic qualifications held by Acharya S that are difficult to refute. I guess I should think twice before using cheap digs in the future :). I generally don't resort to cheap digs and no excuse is acceptable for it, however some of the content from other authors made it difficult for me to maintain control and diplomacy.

I still stand on my original opinion though. Just because someone doesn't have the necessary qualifications doesn't mean that they are wrong, likewise people who are brushed off by academics are not necessarily wrong either e.g. Peter Higgs in 1960 discovered the Higgs mechanism and submitted an article to a European Journal. It was rejected for the cause of "no relevance to physics". He resubmitted the paper to a different Journal (I think it was in the US), it was published shortly thereafter. When CERN in Europe read the article they began to create the worlds largest most expensive project in that particular field, (The Hadron Collider) costing billions of Euro (I think it was estimated to cost around the €2.5bn to €3bn mark).

So here we have examples from both sides. Non-qualified people creating amazing inventions, better than qualified people, and qualified people being rejected by other qualified people and ultimately going on to exceed them (there are other complexities involved here that I don't want to go into right now but I understand your point that the context is different for Acharya, but it's not very different if you try to spot all of the similarities).

The whole topic here has morphed into something completely different to what I originally intended because of cheap digs on completely off-topic subjects and "taking the bait" from both sides.

On that note. I haven't been convinced yet though that God is not a Moral Monster according to current Western ideas of Morality. I still subscribe to Moral Relativism because I think that Morality is relative to the culture that you were born into.

Here's a good explanation about Moral Absolutism from Delos McKown (Disclaimer: I haven't read the book which I have linked to the name, I added the link to identify the author of the below quote as required by BTDF guidelines).

Context: On January 27, 1987 Delos McKown was set up to debate the Rev. Dr. Norman Geisler of Dallas Theological Seminary about "Humanism vs. Christianity." The debate was held in the ballroom at Auburn University.

Geisler had trouble staying on the general topic, focusing rather on abortion, in the most grisly terms. Humanists, he tells, are right in there with the Nazis in disregard of human life. Their despicable deeds are made likely, if not inevitable, by their moral relativism. How much firmer is the ground under Christians, who stand on moral absolutes!

During rebuttal, I said that my favorite moral absolute in scripture was in Luke 6:30 where Jesus is reported to have said, "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." I then turned to the Rev. Dr. Geisler and asked him for his money. Since it was not forthcoming, I knelt on one knee and begged for it, trying to cover all spiritual bases.

With a pale look about his gills, he finally pulled out a dollar bill and waved it wanly at me to which I said, "No, not a dollar; I want all of your money. But I'm not mean; I won't keep your wallet or credit cards." Geisler did not, in fact, comply with the moral absolute in Luke 6:30 (also see Matthew 5:42 and Luke 6:35). If he had given me his money, I would have taken it and kept it. Thus, we would both have been blessed, I with extra cash and he with a clear conscience for having met the challenge of obeying a moral absolute of his lord. I fear his conscience still troubles him over this episode, something I would gladly have spared him by keeping his money.


Just one example of why morality differs by culture. Some people say they live by moral absolutes but they don't, some people think they do but they don't (e.g. once a week Christians), and some people take it to a whole other extreme and will have nothing else.

In Topic: Is God a Moral Monster?

24 May 2011 - 03:51 AM

Doesn't matter what you think is necessary, I asked for references from six reliable sources.


Multiple sources are necessary in order to confirm a contested fact or debated point. They aren't necessary to determine the list of qualifications provided by a someone who lists their own qualifications. Your request was querulous.

I contest this:

I don't know who Aishwarya is. Are you perhaps referring to "Acharya S"? She is not a credible academic. She is certainly not a quotable authority.


So I am requesting references to back up the claim that she is not credible. The evidence provided does not prove that she is not a credible academic, just like my previous examples of Thomas Edison and Nikolai Tesla not being "credible academics" and my own education which led me to disbelieve everything that I was taught and turn a completely different direction.

So give me six references to prove that she is not a credible source. It was requested of me so it's not unreasonable for me to request it of you either.

Also note that the request was for references from "reliable sources" saying that she is not reputable.


I didn't note that as a matter of fact; where did you say that?

Here:

Unsubstantiated claim - Give me six references from reputable sources to prove it :)

Reputable / Reliable, in this context it is the same thing. Reputable = reliable = reputable

If you don't consider her a reliable source then why did you use her as a source?


No one has claimed she isn't a reliable source of information for her own qualifications. What is contested is that she is a reliable source in academic fields in which she has no formal qualifications, and concerning which she is unsupported by the scholarly consensus.

Citation needed - (six sources please) Which scholars disagree her hypotheses? I will accept nothing less than six sources of the same standards which you have previously required from me.

OTOH, I studied in WIBI, Canada and Calvary Christian Center, Ireland (some Apologetics also); was a missionary; helped plant some Churches; was in a worship band; youth group leader, etc... I am now an Atheist :). What does that tell you?


It tells me absolutely nothing.


It will probably tell some people that the examples I gave of people with no academic qualifications have made a major impact to everyday life, and the person who has some qualifications in a certain field (me) has decided to choose a completely different path.

In Topic: Is God a Moral Monster?

24 May 2011 - 02:29 AM

You can start with her own words. No other citations are necessary.


Doesn't matter what you think is necessary, I asked for references from six reliable sources. If I am expected to do this then I expect it to be reciprocated. Also note that the request was for references from "reliable sources" saying that she is not reputable. If you don't consider her a reliable source then why did you use her as a source?

If you think that sending me an article where someone says that they don't really have "world renowned credentials" will help me to believe she is an idiot then you're wrong. On that basis, Tesla (although he did go to several universities) did not complete any courses or attain any degrees before his major inventions which are a very important part of our daily lives today (e.g. semiconductors) http://en.wikipedia....i/Nikola_Tesla. Thomas Edison had no formal qualifications but was a pioneer in many things http://en.wikipedia..../Thomas_Edison.

OTOH, I studied in WIBI, Canada and Calvary Christian Center, Ireland (some Apologetics also); was a missionary; helped plant some Churches; was in a worship band; youth group leader, etc... I am now an Atheist :). What does that tell you?

So no, the reference you provided does not refute her hypotheses or invalidate any of her work.

In Topic: Is God a Moral Monster?

24 May 2011 - 01:18 AM

No one is objecting to you quoting it; what we're objecting to is your breach of forum guidelines by failing to identify your source.


Had I quoted the links provided as the source of my quote I would have been lying. Bible seminary is where my source is, the person quoting it on the Internet probably got it from my original source. I copied and pasted someone else's explanation of it, there was no way to improve on it.

If I walked to the supermarket to buy milk and wrote on my blog "I walked to the supermarket to buy milk" and then someone else copied that into a forum, was subsequently called up on the fact that he used the exact same wording as me I wouldn't make them change it to say "Walked to the supermarket I did, to buy milk." with the voice of Yoda.

Now if I copied and pasted the whole article and called it my own, then that's plagarisation.