Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jazzns' History of Belief
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 31 of 140 (634112)
09-19-2011 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by GDR
09-18-2011 11:08 PM


Re: What is truth?
Hmm, this seems to have been slighly resurrected.
I agree that those things can't be measured and we can never know what a person's intentions are. It all boils down to something inside of us that is largely indefinable. Half the time I don't know what my own motives are let alone the motives of someone else.
Well then why did you ask the question? You posed it as if the resolution of the question provides light into some deeper dilemma.
You have done this a couple of times now in our conversations (by the way I am still intending to reply to you in the other thread). You sort of imply something with a semi-rhetorical question and then back off when challenged about the substance of the question.
Who between the christian and atheist giver is acting more in accord with the bible? My reply is that the question itself is useless and irrelevant. Despite abandoning much of the bible, you are making an arbitrary choice to measure meaning by your own distortion of it. I cannot fathom how that choice is any way better (and I can think of many ways in which it could be worse) than any other standard you could have picked.
Like I've posted other places I just find it more reasonable to believe that humility, kindness and justice are much more likely to have evolved from a source with similar attributes than from a non-sensing, non-intelligent and non-moral source.
Well, you are defining moral attributes and then saying that you cant believe they come from a non-moral source. You have created a tautology that no one disagrees with and are seemingly very pleased with it. I just dont think that it tells us anything at all, least of which is an insight into the presence of a deity.
Morality derives from moral actors. Yes. I think anyone can agree with that.
That does not in any way suggest the Christian God but whatever we are going to believe, including atheism, requires us to make a subjective conclusion about why things are the way they are.
Subjective perhaps, but unsubstantiated or equi-probable, no. Ill argue that the substance backing my decision gives strength to my choice. Its only highly probable that the vast majority of the bible is distorted hogwash. While it is still subjective to choose to throw away the faith that was based upon that hogwash I would argue that I have a much firmer footing that I did while I was trying to salvage any tini bits of truth as it all slipped through my fingers.
I also don't see it as defining oneself by these attributes, because for one thing we all have those attributes one way or another just as we all have their opposites. It's all a matter of degree I suppose. Probably even Hitler exhibited kindness at points in his life.
Right! Which is why it would be useless to ask how moral Hitler was being if he gave $100 to an orphanage because the bible told him to; versus if he did it just to be a nice guy. The absurdity is clear to me.

BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by GDR, posted 09-18-2011 11:08 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 10-12-2011 11:05 AM Jazzns has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 32 of 140 (634113)
09-19-2011 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Phat
09-19-2011 10:05 AM


Re: Give Us A Break
In Message 27 you said:
Phat writes:
Hell as a concept was never meant for us. It is only a given default for stubborn people who wont face reality.
which tells me this hell you speak of is only for people who don't face reality. It seems you and I have differing opinions of what reality is since your follow up explanation is a bible verse.
the possibility that there may be a way to live life that is not of our own inclination.
Is this based on reality? Reality as in what you and I see with our eyes as opposed to "feelings"? Reality as something that is empirically evidenced? It seems I was right when I said:
Except you guys throw in the "and you're going to hell cuz you're wrong".

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Phat, posted 09-19-2011 10:05 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 10-12-2011 7:15 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 140 (636911)
10-12-2011 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by hooah212002
09-19-2011 10:47 AM


Re: Give Us A Break
I'm assuming for the sake of argument that Hell was a real place and/or option. Personally, even as a believer, I am unafraid of such a concept. The issue that has me puzzled is why a concept of a Supreme Being is so outdated...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by hooah212002, posted 09-19-2011 10:47 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2011 8:28 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 35 by Theodoric, posted 10-12-2011 8:38 AM Phat has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 34 of 140 (636925)
10-12-2011 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
10-12-2011 7:15 AM


Re: Give Us A Break
Phat writes:
Personally, even as a believer, I am unafraid of such a concept.
Why?
If you believe hell exists isn't it something to be feared and avoided?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 10-12-2011 7:15 AM Phat has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 35 of 140 (636926)
10-12-2011 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
10-12-2011 7:15 AM


Re: Give Us A Break
Personally, even as a believer, I am unafraid of such a concept.
Doesn't this defeat the purpose? Seems that there is no propose to hell if it isn't something to be feared and avoided.
I have to respect the literalists more than this new age woo stuff. At least the literalists actually believe in something.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 10-12-2011 7:15 AM Phat has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 36 of 140 (636931)
10-12-2011 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Jazzns
09-19-2011 10:34 AM


Re: What is truth?
Sorry. For some reason I missed this response and only noticed it now.
Jazzns writes:
You have done this a couple of times now in our conversations (by the way I am still intending to reply to you in the other thread). You sort of imply something with a semi-rhetorical question and then back off when challenged about the substance of the question.
Who between the christian and atheist giver is acting more in accord with the bible? My reply is that the question itself is useless and irrelevant. Despite abandoning much of the bible, you are making an arbitrary choice to measure meaning by your own distortion of it. I cannot fathom how that choice is any way better (and I can think of many ways in which it could be worse) than any other standard you could have picked.
I don't agree that I backed off from the question. I was trying to make the point that there is a difference between giving because you expect some benefit coming back to you and giving with no expectation of receiving any benefit in return.
I also don't agree that I am abandoning any part of the Bible. The question is how the Bible is to be understood. As with many atheists it seems that the Bible has to be read as if dictated word for word by God to be relevant and as it clearly isn't then the whole thing is discarded.
Jazzns writes:
Well, you are defining moral attributes and then saying that you cant believe they come from a non-moral source. You have created a tautology that no one disagrees with and are seemingly very pleased with it. I just dont think that it tells us anything at all, least of which is an insight into the presence of a deity.
Morality derives from moral actors. Yes. I think anyone can agree with that.
I don't see where my statements were any form of tautology at all. It was essentially the same point I've made on this forum several times. As an atheist I see no way around the idea that you must believe that intelligence, knowledge and morality all evolved from a non-intelligent, unknowledgeable and non-moral source. I believe that it is quite reasonable to believe that there was a pre-existing intelligent, knowledgeable and moral source.
Jazzns writes:
Subjective perhaps, but unsubstantiated or equi-probable, no. Ill argue that the substance backing my decision gives strength to my choice. Its only highly probable that the vast majority of the bible is distorted hogwash. While it is still subjective to choose to throw away the faith that was based upon that hogwash I would argue that I have a much firmer footing that I did while I was trying to salvage any tini bits of truth as it all slipped through my fingers.
I'm not sure what parts of the Bible you think are hogwash unless again you understand the Bible as being dictated word for word by God.
It seems to me that the Bible has at its very core to central themes. One is the so-called social gospel which I believe is best represented by Micah 6:8 where, as I said we are told that what God wants of us is that we humbly love kindness/mercy and do justice. The second theme is God’s long term intention, which the whole Bible story is leading up to, which is to bring all things to resolution through a recreation which is probably best told in Eph. 1:10, (also last chapters of Isaiah and Rev 21), where it tells us that when times reach their fulfillment God will bring all things in heaven and on Earth together under Christ. The Bible is largely a narrative that tells the story of the Jewish people including God’s interaction with them and then finally how God’s message spread beyond them to the world.
Yes I believe that to be true. Yes it is faith. I believe it is reasonable but that is subjective. The fact is that objectively the Bible exists, the world exists, we have certain human characteristics, the world exists in the manner it does and science tells us a great deal about it etc. As individuals we put all of these objective facts together and come to our subjective conclusions about what it all means.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Jazzns, posted 09-19-2011 10:34 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2011 1:26 PM GDR has replied
 Message 38 by Jazzns, posted 10-12-2011 4:24 PM GDR has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 37 of 140 (636954)
10-12-2011 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by GDR
10-12-2011 11:05 AM


Re: What is truth?
GDR writes:
The question is how the Bible is to be understood. As with many atheists it seems that the Bible has to be read as if dictated word for word by God to be relevant and as it clearly isn't then the whole thing is discarded.
I don't think that is exactly what people are saying.
What we mean is that there comes a point when the interpretation of something so far outweighs it's explicit meaning that the original text is of barely any consequence at all. It becomes simply a pointless prop for what one believes anyway.
You don't seem to be so much basing beliefs on interpretations of the bible as interpreting the bible to be in line with your already held beliefs. In which case that it is the bible becomes irrelevant. I could interpret Lord of the Rings and come up with something that matches my pre-existing moral stance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 10-12-2011 11:05 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by GDR, posted 10-12-2011 7:54 PM Straggler has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 38 of 140 (636970)
10-12-2011 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by GDR
10-12-2011 11:05 AM


Re: What is truth?
I also don't agree that I am abandoning any part of the Bible. The question is how the Bible is to be understood. As with many atheists it seems that the Bible has to be read as if dictated word for word by God to be relevant and as it clearly isn't then the whole thing is discarded.
What understanding do you derive from forgery in the bible? What understanding do you get when you extract some useful philosophy from a piece of known fiction?
Moreover, how is that any different from deriving a handy philosophy from any other work of quasi-historical fiction? Lots of people took a lot of meaning from A Million Little Pieces before we learned it was all faked. But what you are saying is that we should cut the liars some slack and find profound meaning in what it represents in some abstract sense. Why? What good is that?
I don't see where my statements were any form of tautology at all. It was essentially the same point I've made on this forum several times. As an atheist I see no way around the idea that you must believe that intelligence, knowledge and morality all evolved from a non-intelligent, unknowledgeable and non-moral source. I believe that it is quite reasonable to believe that there was a pre-existing intelligent, knowledgeable and moral source.
But atheists don't believe that. We have told you that we don't believe that and you still continue to spew that line as if it means something or help you in some way. Nobody (sane) believes that intelligence and morality derives from non-intelligent and non-moral sources.
You think you have some kind of silver bullet with that one line but once again you completely missed the point.
I'm not sure what parts of the Bible you think are hogwash unless again you understand the Bible as being dictated word for word by God.
How about the parts that are lies made by liars with an obvious agenda to support their own self-interest?
It seems to me that the Bible has at its very core to central themes. One is the so-called social gospel which I believe is best represented by Micah 6:8 where, as I said we are told that what God wants of us is that we humbly love kindness/mercy and do justice. The second theme is God's long term intention, which the whole Bible story is leading up to, which is to bring all things to resolution through a recreation which is probably best told in Eph. 1:10, (also last chapters of Isaiah and Rev 21), where it tells us that when times reach their fulfillment God will bring all things in heaven and on Earth together under Christ. The Bible is largely a narrative that tells the story of the Jewish people including God's interaction with them and then finally how God's message spread beyond them to the world.
Well what you have is one nice statement (Micah) that YOU are using to join together themes from two forgeries (Ephesians and Isaiah) and a fairy tale (Revelations). You have no information to suggest that these should go together other than your own opinion. One could just aseasily imagine taking quotes from Beowulf to support the heroism and determination in the Illiad and the Lord of the Rings. If its not real, who cares? I can get my life lessons from books of fiction that are way more interesting than some fragmented ramblings of barely historic, racist authoritarian assholes.
Yes I believe that to be true. Yes it is faith. I believe it is reasonable but that is subjective. The fact is that objectively the Bible exists, the world exists, we have certain human characteristics, the world exists in the manner it does and science tells us a great deal about it etc. As individuals we put all of these objective facts together and come to our subjective conclusions about what it all means.
There is that great equalizer again. What I am suggesting is simply that people believe what they can percieve. You are asking them to believe in much more and at a much greater cost. So while you wish to make your point of view just one more opinon amongst many, I maintain to you that subjective is also inherantly unequal.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 10-12-2011 11:05 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by GDR, posted 10-12-2011 8:14 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 39 of 140 (637007)
10-12-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Straggler
10-12-2011 1:26 PM


Re: What is truth?
GDR writes:
The question is how the Bible is to be understood. As with many atheists it seems that the Bible has to be read as if dictated word for word by God to be relevant and as it clearly isn't then the whole thing is discarded.
Straggler writes:
I don't think that is exactly what people are saying.
What we mean is that there comes a point when the interpretation of something so far outweighs it's explicit meaning that the original text is of barely any consequence at all. It becomes simply a pointless prop for what one believes anyway.
You don't seem to be so much basing beliefs on interpretations of the bible as interpreting the bible to be in line with your already held beliefs. In which case that it is the bible becomes irrelevant. I could interpret Lord of the Rings and come up with something that matches my pre-existing moral stance.
I understand what you are getting at but I don't see it that way. I see the Bible as the story of the people that God chose to take His message of unselfish love to the world.
The OT is written by writers inspired to write down their history. Within this narrative written by many authors is a mixture of mythology, history etc along with divine revelation. These stories are written by these men, (at least I assume they were all men), with their cultural and personal biases. For example if they have gone down and wiped out an entire village it would be natural, when telling the story, to say that it was God who told them to do this. It doesn't mean He actually did. In fact one of the things I think that we should be taking from the OT is that we should not be mixing our nationalism with Christianity. God cares for all nations.
This OT narrative climaxes with Jesus. In Jesus the whole narrative of the OT is focused on Him, the anointed one of God. The OT should be read through the lens of the message of Christ. Even in the NT we have to be careful to understand, that they have to be read within their cultural context to actually understand what it is about.
The Bible is not a just a book of timeless truths, nor is it a book of rules and regulations. Actually my understanding of the Bible has formed my beliefs more than the other way around. I think I mentioned in another thread about how my beliefs have changed because of my understanding of God from the Bible.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 10-12-2011 1:26 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2011 5:40 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 40 of 140 (637015)
10-12-2011 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jazzns
10-12-2011 4:24 PM


Re: What is truth?
Jazzns writes:
What understanding do you derive from forgery in the bible? What understanding do you get when you extract some useful philosophy from a piece of known fiction?
Moreover, how is that any different from deriving a handy philosophy from any other work of quasi-historical fiction? Lots of people took a lot of meaning from A Million Little Pieces before we learned it was all faked. But what you are saying is that we should cut the liars some slack and find profound meaning in what it represents in some abstract sense. Why? What good is that?
I covered this to a large degree in my reply to Straggler.
Any historical account is going to be coloured by the personal and cultural bias of the author. That doesn't mean it's a lie. It just means that it will be the truth as the writer understands it. I haven't done this, but I suggest that you would find a very different account of the Viet Nam War in an American text book than you would in a text book in Viet Nam.
Jazzns writes:
But atheists don't believe that. We have told you that we don't believe that and you still continue to spew that line as if it means something or help you in some way. Nobody (sane) believes that intelligence and morality derives from non-intelligent and non-moral sources.
You think you have some kind of silver bullet with that one line but once again you completely missed the point.
OK, so you have told me where I'm wrong but you haven't told me what intelligent source brought intelligence into the world. What is your point?
Jazzns writes:
How about the parts that are lies made by liars with an obvious agenda to support their own self-interest?
What about it? The Bible has to be read in the context of the whole. This is the problem of fundamentalism when they insist that it be essentially deified, and read as if it was being dictated word for word by God.
Jazzns writes:
Well what you have is one nice statement (Micah) that YOU are using to join together themes from two forgeries (Ephesians and Isaiah) and a fairy tale (Revelations). You have no information to suggest that these should go together other than your own opinion. One could just aseasily imagine taking quotes from Beowulf to support the heroism and determination in the Illiad and the Lord of the Rings. If its not real, who cares? I can get my life lessons from books of fiction that are way more interesting than some fragmented ramblings of barely historic, racist authoritarian assholes.
I understand that you don't put any stock in the accuracy of the Bible but I was just trying to explain my personal understanding of it. We just disagree which is fine.
Jazzns writes:
There is that great equalizer again. What I am suggesting is simply that people believe what they can percieve. You are asking them to believe in much more and at a much greater cost. So while you wish to make your point of view just one more opinon amongst many, I maintain to you that subjective is also inherantly unequal.
But you can't have it all ways. We all believe that our subjective views are superior to others. That is just another subjective opinion. I am not trying to use it as any kind of equalizer. As a theist on this forum it is always pointed out to me that there is no objective evidence for my beliefs. I agree, there isn't, and as a result, so I don't have to keep going over that again and again I point out that my view is subjective, which of course as is yours.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jazzns, posted 10-12-2011 4:24 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 41 of 140 (637050)
10-13-2011 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by GDR
10-12-2011 7:54 PM


Re: What is truth?
That the bible has acted as some sort of catalyst for you personally I don't think is being disputed. But others have read the bible and it has acted as a catalyst for very different conclusions. If you torture it for long enough you can make the bible support pretty much any moral philosophy. From gay hating war mongering fundamentalism to peace and love hippy liberalism. It’s just a matter of interpretation. So how do we decide who is right and who is wrong? Who really has an insight into what God really means?
GDR writes:
God cares for all nations.
How do you know?
GDR writes:
Actually my understanding of the Bible has formed my beliefs more than the other way around. I think I mentioned in another thread about how my beliefs have changed because of my understanding of God from the Bible.
What you call your "understanding" of the bible and God is your interpretation. This comes from within you. And what makes you "you" is in turn a product of various factors.
We'll never know now but I'd bet that if it hadn't been the bible something else would have inspired you along a similar path at some point. Because you were obviously receptive to the sort of compassionate message you advocate as biblical.
Don't give God all the credit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by GDR, posted 10-12-2011 7:54 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 10-13-2011 11:35 AM Straggler has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 42 of 140 (637100)
10-13-2011 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Straggler
10-13-2011 5:40 AM


Re: What is truth?
Straggler writes:
That the bible has acted as some sort of catalyst for you personally I don't think is being disputed.
Actually C S Lewis was much more of a catalyst. I was visiting in your home town and was given "Mere Christianity" at a party I was at and it started from that.
Straggler writes:
But others have read the bible and it has acted as a catalyst for very different conclusions. If you torture it for long enough you can make the bible support pretty much any moral philosophy. From gay hating war mongering fundamentalism to peace and love hippy liberalism. It’s just a matter of interpretation. So how do we decide who is right and who is wrong? Who really has an insight into what God really means?
By understanding it as narrative within a metanarrative. The OT, from essentially Abraham on is the Israel story and Jesus is the climax of that story. Think of it as an Agatha Christie mystery. You can read through all the twists and turns of the story, and then when you get to the end all the clues you got along the way are sorted out and it becomes clear.
As I've said before the OT has to be read through the lens of the NT, while understanding that the books of the Bible were written by men of a particular culture for people of a particular culture in a time much different than our own. It has to be understood that Jesus' audience were first century Jews and I think that it is important to read it with as great an understanding of first century Jewish culture as we can get. N T Wright, (it's your fellow Brits that have had by far the greatest impact on my beliefs ) as a first century historian and New Testament scholar has been a tremendous source of information in this regard.
GDR writes:
God cares for all nations.
Straggler writes:
How do you know?
Simple answer is that theme is in the Bible. Abraham's covenant was for the world and Jesus' message was the same. If God is the creator of all nations then it follows that cares for all nations.
Straggler writes:
What you call your "understanding" of the bible and God is your interpretation. This comes from within you. And what makes you "you" is in turn a product of various factors.
That's true of all of us. I'm also influenced by reading the views of others regarding the Bible and all sorts of things. In the end it isn't about what we know, it's about what effect it all has on our heart.
Straggler writes:
We'll never know now but I'd bet that if it hadn't been the bible something else would have inspired you along a similar path at some point. Because you were obviously receptive to the sort of compassionate message you advocate as biblical.
Don't give God all the credit.
Of course it never was just the Bible. We are impacted by many things in our lives including family, friends, books, EvC, the Bible etc. In the end though, IMHO, the capacity for any of us to humbly love kindness and justice comes from God. Again IMHO if it wasn't for this spark of the divine in all of us we would still be living in a world where survival of the fittest would be the rule and it would be all about me.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2011 5:40 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2011 12:20 PM GDR has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 43 of 140 (637105)
10-13-2011 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by GDR
10-13-2011 11:35 AM


Re: What is truth?
GDR writes:
Again IMHO if it wasn't for this spark of the divine in all of us we would still be living in a world where survival of the fittest would be the rule and it would be all about me.
I think you misunderstand the term "survival of the fittest". The "fittest" can (and indeed very often does) mean most co-operative, altruistic and all those other things you rightly hold in high regard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 10-13-2011 11:35 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by GDR, posted 10-13-2011 1:26 PM Straggler has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 44 of 140 (637111)
10-13-2011 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Straggler
10-13-2011 12:20 PM


Re: What is truth?
Straggler writes:
I think you misunderstand the term "survival of the fittest". The "fittest" can (and indeed very often does) mean most co-operative, altruistic and all those other things you rightly hold in high regard.
I agree with that except for the altruistic part. Co-operation etc, as is common in the animal world, can obviously be of benefit to the individulal or group, but altruism is about the more fit helping the less fit with no personal or group benefit.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2011 12:20 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2011 2:32 PM GDR has replied
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2011 6:25 AM GDR has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 45 of 140 (637118)
10-13-2011 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by GDR
10-13-2011 1:26 PM


Re: What is truth?
but altruism is about the more fit helping the less fit with no personal or group benefit.
Altruism has nothing to do with fitness. Moreover, altrusim has nothing to do with benefitting or not. You could be altruistic and get a reward, however, if you expect a reward, that's not considered altruistic. Also, how does altruism not help the group?

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by GDR, posted 10-13-2011 1:26 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by GDR, posted 10-13-2011 7:12 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024