Kenneth Miller's New Book - Only a Theory...

[_The Nehor]

Just because we call an area of the world Egypt and we refer to the various dynastic periods controlling territory in and around Egypt as Egyptian that does not mean they are meaningfully connected civilizations or that it makes a lick of sense to call the history of those civilizations stable.

Most of what I've read shows enough continuity and connection to make the idea relevant.

[_EAllusion]

I get the sense if Iran was called Persia Nehor also would talk about Persia.

Here's a wiki on the timeline of the dynastic periods of Chinese history. If that's stable then what we have is a pretty low bar for stability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... se_history

[_The Dude]

Nehor, I think you are making this up as you go along.

I don't think we know very much about the really unstable civilizations. They form and dissolve so quickly that nothing much is left behind for archaeologists. Kind of like the Nephites... who happened to be highly religious and god-believing.

[_The Nehor]

I get the sense if Iran was called Persia Nehor also would talk about Persia.

Here's a wiki on the timeline of the dynastic periods of Chinese history. If that's stable then what we have is a pretty low bar for stability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... se_history

No, I wouldn't. China changed dynasties quite a bit but changing dynasties was a part of their religion. Did it really change that much between them? Not really. A few new innovations and changing a few governmental structures. The rest was the same and seemed to stay stable at least until the end of the Han Dynasty.

[_The Nehor]

Nehor, I think you are making this up as you go along.

I don't think we know very much about the really unstable civilizations. They form and dissolve so quickly that nothing much is left behind for archaeologists. Kind of like the Nephites... who happened to be highly religious and god-believing.

Did you even read the Book of Mormon when you were a member? Highly religious and god-believing? The whole book is about apostasy after apostasy and rebellion after rebellion. The whole point of the history portions of the book is here is what not to do.

[_EAllusion]

Just because we call an area of the world Egypt and we refer to the various dynastic periods controlling territory in and around Egypt as Egyptian that does not mean they are meaningfully connected civilizations or that it makes a lick of sense to call the history of those civilizations stable.

Most of what I've read shows enough continuity and connection to make the idea relevant.

Between modern Egypt, Ptolemaic Egypt, and the first dynasty of Egypt. Really? If that's the case, we're talking about different religions, different ethnic groups, different territory controlled, different languages, different monetary systems, different forms of government, and different forms of communication. We are talking about an area that saw repeated governmental collapses, civil wars, and military conquests. This is stable? Ok. What isn't stable?

[_Droopy]

If God does not exist, then there is no ultimate ground of morality and ethics. Hence, everything is permitted contingent upon the social, cultural, and moral temperament of a society at any given time. Dostoevsky didn't mean that everything is permitted for any individual atheist, but that the inescapable logical implication of the nonexistence of God is that all values are ultimately relative and arbitrary, chosen according to the particular predilections and dispositions of a culture at any given point in that culture's development.

Everything is permitted (this permissiveness is immanent in atheism, not necessarily always present) because nothing has any ultimate, intrinsic value.

[_Sethbag]

If God does not exist, then there is no ultimate ground of morality and ethics.

This is a non sequitur. You're going to have to explain why there is no ultimate ground of morality and ethics if there is no God. This isn't a given.

Hence, everything is permitted contingent upon the social, cultural, and moral temperament of a society at any given time.

And this is different from everything being permitted contingent upon the will of your particular Deity how? Joseph Smith said it best: "whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is." This is no different than the society determining what is right - you've just shifted who is "The Decider" up one level.

Dostoevsky didn't mean that everything is permitted for any individual atheist, but that the inescapable logical implication of the nonexistence of God is that all values are ultimately relative and arbitrary, chosen according to the particular predilections and dispositions of a culture at any given point in that culture's development.

And what is right and wrong if you're a believer ultimately depends on what some (inevitably) man tells you your God says it is. You've taken the power of a whole society to determine what is right and wrong and concentrated it into the hands of one person. When that person is benevolent and virtuous, that might not be all that bad, but when that person is an evil, psychopathic tyrant - watch out!

Everything is permitted (this permissiveness is immanent in atheism, not necessarily always present) because nothing has any ultimate, intrinsic value.

And you've solved that with your God how?

Right and Wrong either exist inherently in the universe, or they exist because God created them, or they don't actually exist and we're responsible for coming up with our values as humans working together to form mutually beneficial societies. If they exist because God created them, then they are arbitrary and capricious. If they exist inherently, then why the need for God? And if they don't exist, well, then we'd better figure out how we're going to live together and get along.

[_Moniker]

Yeah, we're debating the issues. Are we improving? I don't know. I doubt it and the main reason I doubt is that so many people seem to want to convince me we are.

You're shifting away from the topic. YOU were saying that we shouldn't talk about improvement and now you're bringing it up again. I haven't argued we're improving. I'm merely stating the fact of the matter that humankind works out their own morality/ethical conduct.

We're social creatures and in light of this we take certain actions, we get feedback from these actions, and then can understand how actions effect us and others.

Are we living the Ten Commandments? No. We create professional codes of conduct because so few act ethically. We have rules to keep some people from preying on others. This can be a good thing. It's also an attribute of secret combinations. Honor among thieves. We weigh issues but are we improving? I don't think so. In Rome the ethical debates about high ethics consumed the educated among the Republic when ethical conduct had long since vanished.

You sure are pessimistic. You think most people are actually unethical? That's a stunner since most Americans self identify as religious and specifically Christians. Huh. Guess that God belief doesn't really help them act so well.

It's a given that society creates legislation, policy, codes of acceptable behavior, etc.. and now you're saying this is a bad thing?

What is your point, Nehor?

I'm saying it's dangerous to take a lazy stance based on easy information because it encourages lazy thinking. It's even more dangerous when you're discussing the question of God which (if he exists) is the most important question there is. You're not dangerous to others (usually) but from where I'm looking it's dangerous to yourself.

Are you talking generically or me specifically?

[_The Nehor]

You sure are pessimistic. You think most people are actually unethical? That's a stunner since most Americans self identify as religious and specifically Christians. Huh. Guess that God belief doesn't really help them act so well.

It's a given that society creates legislation, policy, codes of acceptable behavior, etc.. and now you're saying this is a bad thing?

What is your point, Nehor?

Are you talking generically or me specifically?

Very few people self-identify as self-righteous bastards or jerks or reprehensible stains on the face of humanity. Doesn't change that they're out there. I can call myself a Saint, a good and decent person, Napoleon reincarnated, the duchess of Kent, or Big Bird. I expect you won't believe some of them if I claimed them. I'm going to let Christ decide who is and is not a Christian.

I didn't say society creating policy and codes is bad. I'm just saying I don't think they ever exalted anyone.

As to your last question, I meant it generically. I don't know enough about you or anyone else (with the possible exception of me and that is iffy) to know if it applies specifically.