I didn't have a camera setup with the intention of a time-lapse video like I did with the Scott's wedding... but I think it still turned out pretty cool.
Posts
Another Hallmark Coupon
12 hours ago
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
30 Second Wedding
Here is a neat video... Bryan (Weez) and Katie Scott's wedding in 30 seconds. (look for the bug that flew on the lense at the beginning!)
This one I included the sound. You can hear some thunder (or maybe an airplane) and the crowd clapping at the end.
Which do you like better? With the actual noises or just music?
This one I included the sound. You can hear some thunder (or maybe an airplane) and the crowd clapping at the end.
Which do you like better? With the actual noises or just music?
Monday, October 12, 2009
The Illogical Morality of an Atheist
The following is a conversation I had with an Atheist/Evolutionist about the logic of morality.
-------------------------
Atheist - We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special. -Stephen Hawking
Caleb - If that is the case, than you don't mind if I come kick you out of your house and steal all of your stuff? If we are just advanced monkeys, morality has no foundation other than that which I arbitrarily assign it at any given time.
Atheist - That is the weakest argument for your god caleb. If that was the case then all buddhist would be killing and raping eachother by your definition. Let me explain why. You are saying that god is the only source of morals yet there are many people who dont belive in your god so they are all wrong right. So that means they are moraless heathens right? ... Read MoreGet a better argument and come back with it. I expect a more solid argument from especially you caleb. MORALS DO NOT and i repeat DO NOT, COINCIDE WITH A DEITY. I dont belive in a god, I dont go to peoples houses and steal all of there stuff. I have no less a moral base than you do.
Caleb - So what is your moral base? Why don't you go and steal stuff?
Atheist - you arent presenting your case very well.
Caleb - and you didn't answer my very simple question...
Atheist - welol since morality is relativeI happened to learn mine from my non christian parents life experiance and the laws of the land. I guess yours are from the 10 commandment?
Caleb - So you believe that murder is wrong only because your parents told you so and it is illegal. Moral relativism demands that your morality is completely arbitrary. What if my parents taught me that murder is right and the law of the land allows it? Am I wrong to murder someone?
Atheist - you discount the fact that all though parents are important life experiance is a big factor. Its not so black and white and you know it. Your parents dont control you.
Caleb - ok, but you still didn't answer my question. Add life experience into the equation if that makes it easier to answer.
Atheist - your senario is not real and never will be so why dont we stick to the facts and what is real. we wont get any where like that. I dont know if it would be right i have never lived in a place like that nor do i know of any place that is like that so your senario means nothing.
Caleb - Of course it is real. Ever heard of any of the genocides in history? Those men found nothing wrong with murder. Are their morals right if they meet the qualifiers you listed? Hitler met those qualifiers. Was what he did right? His parents obviously didn't teach him that murder was wrong, his life experience didn't teach him that murder was wrong, and the law of the land allowed it. By your definition, what he did was good based on moral relativity.
Atheist - thats weak. your church killed witches by the thousands. Armies of witches even. Did that make it right? Genocide is still not legal by global standards either. You also have african countroes that it is ok to kill someone if you can prove they are a witch. I dont think thats right either because it is not a global social norm. Leave it to a christian to bring up hitler when in their own past they killed more people than even the jewish genocide of germany.
Caleb - My church (Pleasant Ridge) never killed witches. I assume you are referring to the Salem witch trials. I am pretty sure only 19-20 were actually killed, not thousands and definitely not armies of witches. Regardless, you still aren't answering my very basic question. Why is it wrong to murder? Claiming its legality as rational for being morally wrong doesn't hold up. If murder was legal under whatever legal system you live, by your definitions, it would be right.
Let us phrase this in light of the original context. At what point would a monkey killing a monkey be wrong? At what point would an advanced monkey killing a monkey be wrong? At what point would an advanced monkey killing an advanced monkey be wrong?
Atheist - Its not. They dont have the social structure that we do. for us it is wrong because over the millions of years we have developed a system that says its wrong to kill because of fear of retaliation, laws, or whatever consequince we have learned as a species that it is wrong. the spanish inquisition, crusades there are many killings in the name of "God". You should read up on your church history. And the salem trials had 150 imprisoned 26 convictions and 20 deaths. 19 hangings and 1 crushed by stones. I stand by my original statement morals do not coincide with a deity. You can argue the directness of my answers all you want but you have still proven nothing or brought anything but an effort to over simplify a problem.
Caleb - You basically just said that murder is wrong because we will get punished for it. That only tells me what happens if you murder, not why it is wrong.
Atheist - damn duse this is getting really old. I have said it a hundred times in here it is an established social rule. we generally care for eachother and we recognize that it is wrong by laws our parents and life experiance. we have learned it to be a matter of survival. You still have brought nothing. so bring something to the argument or dont respond."
Caleb - Your argument is logically self defeating. If my parents, life experience, laws, and survival dictate that murder is good; your logic would offer no condemnation of murder. If everybody's morality is relative (as you have stated), then no one can condemn the morality of other people. Based on the factors you have stated, my moral code could state that murder is good.
In an evolutionary worldview, evil cannot exist. Good and evil are really just relative decisions that boil down to personal preference. If the electrical impulses in our brains are merely the result of randomized mutations and evolution, how can anybody have a choice in what their actions are? If the electrochemical reactions in a brain are just the mindless outcome of billions of random chance DNA copying errors, then how would it make sense to hold people responsible for their “decisions”?
After all, we do not get angry at an ice cube for melting in the heat. We don't get mad at gravity holding us down. These are just the laws of nature. So why would an evolutionist be angry at anything one person does to another, if we are all nothing more than randomized complex chemical reactions? If we are simply evolved animals, why should we hold to a code of morality? After all, what one monkey does to another monkey is morally irrelevant. Your argument about right and wrong is inconsistent since such concepts are meaningless within an evolutionist worldview.
Atheist - finally something worth while. why did it take you this long? How is it self defeating? You are saying that all of these thing are saying that murder is good and they do nothing of the sort. We do have condemnation of murder which are given by our laws. Even though they are relative we all still live on the same earth so although they maybe slightly diffrent they are still subject to the same rules as everyone else. Even though we are at the mercy of chemical reactions in our brain we still have voluntary actions. Kind of funny that you would say that because an argument could be given that we should not hold people accountable for their actions because its all in "gods" plan. I could say your bible is inconsitant with your moral codes because it says its ok to rape a girl if the rapist give the father 5 silver and marrys her (among other things). No one says that it is meaningless except for you. And you are right it is part of nature thats why no matter how many laws or people telling you its wrong it will still happen. I am an evolutionist and by no means is it meaningless, again another over simplification. The problem with your arguments is you keep trying to tell me that we have to think in a certain way if we accept an idea and that is not the case. Like the quote i put up by mister shermer says "Accepting evolution does not force us to jettison our morals and ethics, and rejecting evolution does not ensure their constancy". By the way mutations maybe random but evolution is not
Caleb - Based on your statement about God and the Bible, I would have to conclude you have a fundamental confusion about what the Bible actually says. Alas, that conversation would provide an endless tangent from the current topic.
Mr. Sherman's quite is nice, but a look into evolution that is based on logic provides no foundation for morality.
William Provine, atheist evolutionist prof from Cornell, "No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth.”
Richard Dawkins (Oxford)- "Any kind of politics that is based on Darwinism for me would be bad politics, it would be immoral. Putting it another way, I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics."
Joshua Greene (Harvard) - "Once you understand someone’s behavior on a sufficiently mechanical level, it’s very hard to look at them as evil. You can look at them as dangerous; you can pity them. But evil doesn’t exist on a neuronal level."
Lanier/Dawkins Debate (both evolutionists)
Jaron Lanier - "There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature."
Richard Dawkins - "All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth."
In your last response, you claim that morality is relative and then in the same sentence you say that it applies to everybody. You can't have both. Morality is either absolute or relative. If you claim morality is absolute, you have to be able to explain why (societal relativism is not an absolute). If you claim morality is relative, you can't logically condemn my relative morals regardless of how heinous. Debating a contradiction is impossible. We need to make the distinction before this can continue. So which do you believe? Is morality absolute or relative?
Here is an article that might be of interest to you:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/rape.asp
And one last quote: Dr Beckwith - "To remain consistent the ethical relativist cannot criticize intolerable moral practices, believe in real moral progress, or acknowledge the existence of real moral reformers. For these three forms of moral judgment presuppose the existence of real objective transcultural values."
Atheist - Lets look at it like this, caleb. Where did you learn it was not right to "murder" (let me use your words). Because the bible says "Though shall not kill". I gurantee you that if you went to war you could possibly have to kill someone. They are called heros, right? What if you had a break in to your house as your example before. What if you had a gun and killed them? In texas you are in your right, is that wrong? Now lets say you murder someone in cold blood that is deffinately wrong right? You have learned it is wrong to kill in certain contex that is all.
Caleb - Do you really want to get into the discussion of the difference in the Hebrew words ratsach and nakah? We can, but that is a derailment from the big picture we are trying to look at. Obviously murder and kill mean two separate things. If we need to discuss the difference between the two, let me know.
Any answer to my previous question?
Atheist - You right we need to make some distinctions before we go on. Ok first let me start by saying that you got some nice quotes there. Second let me say that the idea that darwanisim is a set of moral rules ridiculous, since it explains the diversity of life. And the guy is right good/ evil do not exist on a nueronal level, but that is not what we are talking about here we are talking about why it is wrong to kill someone. Third I said that yes morals are relative but we all live in a global society where, although they will be slightly diffrent, be just about the same. I dont see it as a moral vacum at all, I recognize that you dont get your morals from evolution or a god. You want to talk about derailment!? You have argued my directness of my answers to nueronal science! you have pulled the conersation this way and that. But you have danced all around the original argument! YOU DONT GET YOUR MORALS FROM A GOD NOR THOUGH EVOLUTION! And you have yet to answer my question nor provide any idea as to where you got your morals from. So why dont you answer my question because your idea that you have taken over the conversation is laughable.
Caleb - I believe and logic dictates that morality does not hinge on the belief in God; morality hinges on the existence of God. Without the existence of God, morality is completely relative and logic proves that people have no rationale for condemning actions deemed evil by societal relativism. Without the existence of God, good and evil cannot exist since every action I take would be a causal response to millions of years of evolution. One can be a moral person without believing in God... they just aren't a logically moral person. That is ok. I would much rather someone be illogically moral than immorally logical.
-------------------------
At this point, he ended the discussion.
-------------------------
Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments section!
-------------------------
Atheist - We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special. -Stephen Hawking
Caleb - If that is the case, than you don't mind if I come kick you out of your house and steal all of your stuff? If we are just advanced monkeys, morality has no foundation other than that which I arbitrarily assign it at any given time.
Atheist - That is the weakest argument for your god caleb. If that was the case then all buddhist would be killing and raping eachother by your definition. Let me explain why. You are saying that god is the only source of morals yet there are many people who dont belive in your god so they are all wrong right. So that means they are moraless heathens right? ... Read MoreGet a better argument and come back with it. I expect a more solid argument from especially you caleb. MORALS DO NOT and i repeat DO NOT, COINCIDE WITH A DEITY. I dont belive in a god, I dont go to peoples houses and steal all of there stuff. I have no less a moral base than you do.
Caleb - So what is your moral base? Why don't you go and steal stuff?
Atheist - you arent presenting your case very well.
Caleb - and you didn't answer my very simple question...
Atheist - welol since morality is relativeI happened to learn mine from my non christian parents life experiance and the laws of the land. I guess yours are from the 10 commandment?
Caleb - So you believe that murder is wrong only because your parents told you so and it is illegal. Moral relativism demands that your morality is completely arbitrary. What if my parents taught me that murder is right and the law of the land allows it? Am I wrong to murder someone?
Atheist - you discount the fact that all though parents are important life experiance is a big factor. Its not so black and white and you know it. Your parents dont control you.
Caleb - ok, but you still didn't answer my question. Add life experience into the equation if that makes it easier to answer.
Atheist - your senario is not real and never will be so why dont we stick to the facts and what is real. we wont get any where like that. I dont know if it would be right i have never lived in a place like that nor do i know of any place that is like that so your senario means nothing.
Caleb - Of course it is real. Ever heard of any of the genocides in history? Those men found nothing wrong with murder. Are their morals right if they meet the qualifiers you listed? Hitler met those qualifiers. Was what he did right? His parents obviously didn't teach him that murder was wrong, his life experience didn't teach him that murder was wrong, and the law of the land allowed it. By your definition, what he did was good based on moral relativity.
Atheist - thats weak. your church killed witches by the thousands. Armies of witches even. Did that make it right? Genocide is still not legal by global standards either. You also have african countroes that it is ok to kill someone if you can prove they are a witch. I dont think thats right either because it is not a global social norm. Leave it to a christian to bring up hitler when in their own past they killed more people than even the jewish genocide of germany.
Caleb - My church (Pleasant Ridge) never killed witches. I assume you are referring to the Salem witch trials. I am pretty sure only 19-20 were actually killed, not thousands and definitely not armies of witches. Regardless, you still aren't answering my very basic question. Why is it wrong to murder? Claiming its legality as rational for being morally wrong doesn't hold up. If murder was legal under whatever legal system you live, by your definitions, it would be right.
Let us phrase this in light of the original context. At what point would a monkey killing a monkey be wrong? At what point would an advanced monkey killing a monkey be wrong? At what point would an advanced monkey killing an advanced monkey be wrong?
Atheist - Its not. They dont have the social structure that we do. for us it is wrong because over the millions of years we have developed a system that says its wrong to kill because of fear of retaliation, laws, or whatever consequince we have learned as a species that it is wrong. the spanish inquisition, crusades there are many killings in the name of "God". You should read up on your church history. And the salem trials had 150 imprisoned 26 convictions and 20 deaths. 19 hangings and 1 crushed by stones. I stand by my original statement morals do not coincide with a deity. You can argue the directness of my answers all you want but you have still proven nothing or brought anything but an effort to over simplify a problem.
Caleb - You basically just said that murder is wrong because we will get punished for it. That only tells me what happens if you murder, not why it is wrong.
Atheist - damn duse this is getting really old. I have said it a hundred times in here it is an established social rule. we generally care for eachother and we recognize that it is wrong by laws our parents and life experiance. we have learned it to be a matter of survival. You still have brought nothing. so bring something to the argument or dont respond."
Caleb - Your argument is logically self defeating. If my parents, life experience, laws, and survival dictate that murder is good; your logic would offer no condemnation of murder. If everybody's morality is relative (as you have stated), then no one can condemn the morality of other people. Based on the factors you have stated, my moral code could state that murder is good.
In an evolutionary worldview, evil cannot exist. Good and evil are really just relative decisions that boil down to personal preference. If the electrical impulses in our brains are merely the result of randomized mutations and evolution, how can anybody have a choice in what their actions are? If the electrochemical reactions in a brain are just the mindless outcome of billions of random chance DNA copying errors, then how would it make sense to hold people responsible for their “decisions”?
After all, we do not get angry at an ice cube for melting in the heat. We don't get mad at gravity holding us down. These are just the laws of nature. So why would an evolutionist be angry at anything one person does to another, if we are all nothing more than randomized complex chemical reactions? If we are simply evolved animals, why should we hold to a code of morality? After all, what one monkey does to another monkey is morally irrelevant. Your argument about right and wrong is inconsistent since such concepts are meaningless within an evolutionist worldview.
Atheist - finally something worth while. why did it take you this long? How is it self defeating? You are saying that all of these thing are saying that murder is good and they do nothing of the sort. We do have condemnation of murder which are given by our laws. Even though they are relative we all still live on the same earth so although they maybe slightly diffrent they are still subject to the same rules as everyone else. Even though we are at the mercy of chemical reactions in our brain we still have voluntary actions. Kind of funny that you would say that because an argument could be given that we should not hold people accountable for their actions because its all in "gods" plan. I could say your bible is inconsitant with your moral codes because it says its ok to rape a girl if the rapist give the father 5 silver and marrys her (among other things). No one says that it is meaningless except for you. And you are right it is part of nature thats why no matter how many laws or people telling you its wrong it will still happen. I am an evolutionist and by no means is it meaningless, again another over simplification. The problem with your arguments is you keep trying to tell me that we have to think in a certain way if we accept an idea and that is not the case. Like the quote i put up by mister shermer says "Accepting evolution does not force us to jettison our morals and ethics, and rejecting evolution does not ensure their constancy". By the way mutations maybe random but evolution is not
Caleb - Based on your statement about God and the Bible, I would have to conclude you have a fundamental confusion about what the Bible actually says. Alas, that conversation would provide an endless tangent from the current topic.
Mr. Sherman's quite is nice, but a look into evolution that is based on logic provides no foundation for morality.
William Provine, atheist evolutionist prof from Cornell, "No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth.”
Richard Dawkins (Oxford)- "Any kind of politics that is based on Darwinism for me would be bad politics, it would be immoral. Putting it another way, I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics."
Joshua Greene (Harvard) - "Once you understand someone’s behavior on a sufficiently mechanical level, it’s very hard to look at them as evil. You can look at them as dangerous; you can pity them. But evil doesn’t exist on a neuronal level."
Lanier/Dawkins Debate (both evolutionists)
Jaron Lanier - "There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature."
Richard Dawkins - "All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth."
In your last response, you claim that morality is relative and then in the same sentence you say that it applies to everybody. You can't have both. Morality is either absolute or relative. If you claim morality is absolute, you have to be able to explain why (societal relativism is not an absolute). If you claim morality is relative, you can't logically condemn my relative morals regardless of how heinous. Debating a contradiction is impossible. We need to make the distinction before this can continue. So which do you believe? Is morality absolute or relative?
Here is an article that might be of interest to you:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/rape.asp
And one last quote: Dr Beckwith - "To remain consistent the ethical relativist cannot criticize intolerable moral practices, believe in real moral progress, or acknowledge the existence of real moral reformers. For these three forms of moral judgment presuppose the existence of real objective transcultural values."
Atheist - Lets look at it like this, caleb. Where did you learn it was not right to "murder" (let me use your words). Because the bible says "Though shall not kill". I gurantee you that if you went to war you could possibly have to kill someone. They are called heros, right? What if you had a break in to your house as your example before. What if you had a gun and killed them? In texas you are in your right, is that wrong? Now lets say you murder someone in cold blood that is deffinately wrong right? You have learned it is wrong to kill in certain contex that is all.
Caleb - Do you really want to get into the discussion of the difference in the Hebrew words ratsach and nakah? We can, but that is a derailment from the big picture we are trying to look at. Obviously murder and kill mean two separate things. If we need to discuss the difference between the two, let me know.
Any answer to my previous question?
Atheist - You right we need to make some distinctions before we go on. Ok first let me start by saying that you got some nice quotes there. Second let me say that the idea that darwanisim is a set of moral rules ridiculous, since it explains the diversity of life. And the guy is right good/ evil do not exist on a nueronal level, but that is not what we are talking about here we are talking about why it is wrong to kill someone. Third I said that yes morals are relative but we all live in a global society where, although they will be slightly diffrent, be just about the same. I dont see it as a moral vacum at all, I recognize that you dont get your morals from evolution or a god. You want to talk about derailment!? You have argued my directness of my answers to nueronal science! you have pulled the conersation this way and that. But you have danced all around the original argument! YOU DONT GET YOUR MORALS FROM A GOD NOR THOUGH EVOLUTION! And you have yet to answer my question nor provide any idea as to where you got your morals from. So why dont you answer my question because your idea that you have taken over the conversation is laughable.
Caleb - I believe and logic dictates that morality does not hinge on the belief in God; morality hinges on the existence of God. Without the existence of God, morality is completely relative and logic proves that people have no rationale for condemning actions deemed evil by societal relativism. Without the existence of God, good and evil cannot exist since every action I take would be a causal response to millions of years of evolution. One can be a moral person without believing in God... they just aren't a logically moral person. That is ok. I would much rather someone be illogically moral than immorally logical.
-------------------------
At this point, he ended the discussion.
-------------------------
Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments section!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Elaborate Garter Removal
Usually at wedding receptions, the groom will remove the garter with a bit of joking, innuendo, and a laugh. This normally very shy groom had a suprise in for his bride...
If you just love watching wedding videos, you can see more of ours here:
Vimeo Channel
YouTube Channel
If you just love watching wedding videos, you can see more of ours here:
Vimeo Channel
YouTube Channel
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Healthcare Townhall
Audria and I went and filmed some stuff at the Healthcare Townhall held by Congressman Joe Barton (Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce) in Mansfield, TX.
Go comment on the videos if you agree or disagree with what is said.
Go comment on the videos if you agree or disagree with what is said.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Clean House
Need help cleaning up, reorganizing, or painting? Call Audria...
Stevens - The Transformation
Although... I think she only has a few days of left of summer... so book her for next summer! :)
Stevens - The Transformation
Although... I think she only has a few days of left of summer... so book her for next summer! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
