A personal question

Dear Nos482.
Ill try to simplify this ."Sometimes I have the feeling that in the western world , there is a belief that lower educated people are more compassionate and caring because of ignorance and the higher educated are usually cold and selfish because of knowledge."Nos482:Where did you hear this?What I meant was that, the philosophy of "survival of the fittest" isnt very suitable outside the classroom.Because, although survival of the fittest isnt necessary by means of violence, the underlying message to the society is that feelings such as love and compassion exists only because of our interest to stay alive, they arent real.
Of course by writing "western world" I was crossing the line and I apologize, perhaps I should have stated educated world in general."Before I go any further I wish to tell you this: The human body isnt suited for selfishness or competiveness, nor is it suited for anger or rage, nor stress or greed."Nos482:???During the latest two or three decades litterary hundreds of scientifical researches all point to that aggression isnt borned with and that violence behaviour is affected by social, situation and environmental-dependent factors.
Maybe the clearest statement about the new research was concluded in the Sevilla announcement about violence 1986 and was formulated and signed by twenty of the most succesfull scientists from all around the world.
In this overview, they of course stated that violence behaviours
occure, but consquently stated that it is scientifically incorrect
to state that we have a borned with tendency to wage wars or commit acts of violence.
This behaviour isnt genetically programmed in the human nature.
In short, there is nothing in our neuro-physiology that drives us."Of course feelings as above do appear but they are all hazardous to our health and to our surrounding environment ,this is a fact.
Instead, feelings as love and closeness coincide with the physical and psycological structure of of the human body, that is also a fact."Nos482:The survival instinct is hazardous to our health?The tendency to tie close bonds with others, to act for the benefit of others together with our own, can be deeply rooted in the human nature from a distant pass when those who joined and formed a group increased their chances for survival.
This need to tie social bonds remains even today.
In researches of what the factors are for heart-problems, like the one who has been made by Dr Larry Scherwitz,they have found that the persons who were most self-centered( those who during the interviues most often reffered themselves by saying "I", "me" and mine "mine")
had greater risks of suffering from heart-problems ,
and they had a much lesser life expectency than the others.
And the other way around( people who where the least self-centered and behaved altruistic had a much better health and higer life expectancy)."Despite that, the majority of the scientists tend to approach issues with a cold negative mind, here are 2 examples of looking at the relationship between women and child."Nos482:Negative mind? It is neither positive nor negative. They don't let such things cloud their judgement.But you have to realise that when scientists go into fields such as the example stated above, where we are talking about social behaviours it can be quite blind and not see the obvious."If we have made the assumtion that self-interest controls every human behaviour then the infant works as a perfect example as a "proof" of the validity of the theory .At birth the child seems programmed with only one thing in mind, that is to satisfact his own needs, food, closeness, safety and so forth, but if we set aside the fundamental assumtion about egoism a new picture is starting to appear.We could just as well say that a child is programmed for only one thing, and that is the ability and the intention to give others pleasure and satisfaction."Nos482:What? An infant is not born with a fully formed mind. It is still operating on instinct.Never stated it were, read above again please."Both of the examples above are based on facts but in textbooks the former is written, despite the fact that the latter coincides with our social and human structure."Babble.What is babble?"Science is worthless alone, it is only in the hands of us that it becomes effective and thus the latter way of thinking should be embraced by all humans."Science is a method and not a belief.Who said it was a belief, but you can interpret the same fact through different perspective when it comes to social issues as above."And to Nos482, the above said includes another level to science, spirituall and physical, and it isnt by any means resembling "pseudo-science" because everything above are based on facts."Nos482seudo-science makes the same assertions as well. There is a difference between good facts and the ones which those who believe in pseudo-science use. The best lie uses just enough truth to make it look real.I would be glad if you can name ONE thing from all the above said that isnt true.Sincerely Delshad

Originally posted by Delshad:What I meant was that, the philosophy of "survival of the fittest" isnt very suitable outside the classroom.Because, although survival of the fittest isnt necessary by means of violence, the underlying message to the society is that feelings such as love and compassion exists only because of our interest to stay alive, they arent real.They are real. They are biochemical responses to internal and external stimuli.During the latest two or three decades litterary hundreds of scientifical researches all point to that aggression isnt borned with and that violence behaviour is affected by social, situation and environmental-dependent factors.
Maybe the clearest statement about the new research was concluded in the Sevilla announcement about violence 1986 and was formulated and signed by twenty of the most succesfull scientists from all around the world.
In this overview, they of course stated that violence behaviours
occure, but consquently stated that it is scientifically incorrect
to state that we have a borned with tendency to wage wars or commit acts of violence.
This behaviour isnt genetically programmed in the human nature.
In short, there is nothing in our neuro-physiology that drives us.

​

The tendency to tie close bonds with others, to act for the benefit of others together with our own, can be deeply rooted in the human nature from a distant pass when those who joined and formed a group increased their chances for survival.
This need to tie social bonds remains even today.As long as they are of our own group. The Other is always a threat to be dealt with. Animals only kill when they are either hungry or feel threatened. Humans are one of the few animals who kill for sport or pleasure, and even prey on their own.In researches of what the factors are for heart-problems, like the one who has been made by Dr Larry Scherwitz,they have found that the persons who were most self-centered( those who during the interviues most often reffered themselves by saying "I", "me" and mine "mine")
had greater risks of suffering from heart-problems ,
and they had a much lesser life expectency than the others.
And the other way around( people who where the least self-centered and behaved altruistic had a much better health and higer life expectancy).What was the size of the sample group and did they take into account other factor such as diet and environment?But you have to realise that when scientists go into fields such as the example stated above, where we are talking about social behaviours it can be quite blind and not see the obvious.And the obvious is?Never stated it were, read above again please.To have intent of anykind one must first understand it.Who said it was a belief, but you can interpret the same fact through different perspective when it comes to social issues as above.You had said that it was a way of thinking.I would be glad if you can name ONE thing from all the above said that isnt true.The point isn't if it is true or not, but of it is based on good facts and not deceptive ones.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-17-2002]

"In researches of what the factors are for heart-problems, like the one who has been made by Dr Larry Scherwitz,they have found that the persons who were most self-centered( those who during the interviues most often reffered themselves by saying "I", "me" and mine "mine")
had greater risks of suffering from heart-problems ,
and they had a much lesser life expectency than the others.
And the other way around( people who where the least self-centered and behaved altruistic had a much better health and higher life expectancy)."Nos482:What was the size of the sample group and did they take into account other factor such as diet and environment?It was a large group and yes, diets and social life in general were
taken in consideration."During the latest two or three decades litterary hundreds of scientifical researches all point to that aggression isnt borned with and that violence behaviour is affected by social, situation and environmental-dependent factors.
Maybe the clearest statement about the new research was concluded in the Sevilla announcement about violence 1986 and was formulated and signed by twenty of the most succesfull scientists from all around the world.
In this overview, they of course stated that violence behaviours
occure, but consquently stated that it is scientifically incorrect
to state that we have a borned with tendency to wage wars or commit acts of violence.
This behaviour isnt genetically programmed in the human nature.
In short, there is nothing in our neuro-physiology that drives us."Nos482:As long as they are of our own group. The Other is always a threat to be dealt with. Animals only kill when they are either hungry or feel threatened. Humans are one of the few animals who kill for sport or pleasure, and even prey on their own.If you had read the above you would find that "killing for pleasure" or anything like that hasn`t got anything to do with instincts or genetic structure, its derived from social influences and isn`t static but dependable upon the outside world.
Thats part of why religion exists in the world, for moral guidance."I would be glad if you can name ONE thing from all the above said that isnt true."Nos482:The point isn't if it is true or not, but of it is based on good facts and not deceptive ones.Ahh please, cut it!
What deceptive facts!?.
If it is deceptive to uphold a loving, caring, social structure with morals in coordinance to our human structure, then you need to clearify yourself.IOnce again, from all I`ve said, in what meaning can you recognize any false information or deception.
Ill discuss it with you if that is the case.Sincerely Delshad

If you had read the above you would find that "killing for pleasure" or anything like that hasn`t got anything to do with instincts or genetic structure, its derived from social influences and isn`t static but dependable upon the outside world.
Thats part of why religion exists in the world, for moral guidance.Religion has more to do with power and control than with morality. Atheists, and the like, tend to be far more moral than theists.Ahh please, cut it!Cut what?What deceptive facts!?.
If it is deceptive to uphold a loving, caring, social structure with morals in coordinance to our human structure, then you need to clearify yourself.It is instinctual to look after one's offspring to make sure that they grow to maturity.I Once again, from all I`ve said, in what meaning can you recognize any false information or deception.
Ill discuss it with you if that is the case.Trying to say that we're not animals. Other animals have social structures as well. They care and love for their offspring without the need to make up things such as religions in order to function. You are making sound as if to be an animal means to be without any control at all. We could learn much from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is the attitude of thinking that we're separate and above the rest of nature which is the cause of many of our problems.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-17-2002]

quote:

---

TB:
My only point is regardless of linearity or non-linearity of genotype-phenotype relationships, genes do dictate phenotype so no-one is surprised at the genetic similarity of us to chimps - we are phsyiologically very similar. But that could be due to a common designer.

---

quote:

---

Mark:
So why are non-morphological defining genes (cytochrome c, for example) so similar as well, then?

---

quote:

---

TB::
Phenotype does not have to be macroscopically morphological. Cytochromes will be used wherever required in respiration.

---

TB,That's not what I mean. I often hear that chimps & humans have similar genomes because they are morphologically similar. With molecules such as cytochrome c, there is no need for them to be similar at all. We could reasonably have identical cyt c as a mushroom, why not? It may need a nip & tuck here & there, but there's no real reason that the molecule cytochrome c varies by up to 50% (amino acid-wise)in other life forms. Mushroom cyt c does exactly the same thing in humans as sunflowers, chimps & dolphins, yet curiously, phylogenetic trees based on nucleotide & amino acid sequences are highly congruent with cladograms tracking morphological traits.Why would this be?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"I Once again, from all I`ve said, in what meaning can you recognize any false information or deception.
Ill discuss it with you if that is the case."Nos482:Trying to say that we're not animals. Other animals have social structures as well. They care and love for their offspring without the need to make up things such as religions in order to function. You are making sound as if to be an animal means to be without any control at all. We could learn much from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is the attitude of thinking that we're separate and above the rest of nature which is the cause of many of our problems.Let me further explain, animals are driven by instincts so of course they do not need any religion to maintain their social structure, they eat, sleep ,fight, make love etc without question.
It becomes a little more complicated in our case, because it seems that our intelligence has outgrown our instincts thus it is our intelligence that mostly control how we see the world and respond to it.
Therefore moral values isnt going to pop up on its own in our case, we need values coming from outside.
So it isn`t just look at the animal kingdom and learn, their way of maintaing a social order isnt like our own."If you had read the above you would find that "killing for pleasure" or anything like that hasn`t got anything to do with instincts or genetic structure, its derived from social influences and isn`t static but dependable upon the outside world.
Thats part of why religion exists in the world, for moral guidance.Nos482:Religion has more to do with power and control than with morality. Atheists, and the like, tend to be far more moral than
theists."Thats funny, Im a practising Muslim and I should know a little more than you about what religion is about.
And you state that atheists and the like are far more moral than theists.
Do you realize that 2-3 billion people in the world are religious, what you just said now is that YOU know more than them and their way of raising their young ones as way they have been doing for milleniums is wrong.
Where is your RESPECT and MORALS now then?The defence rests. Sincerely Delshad

Originally posted by Delshad:Let me further explain, animals are driven by instincts so of course they do not need any religion to maintain their social structure, they eat, sleep ,fight, make love etc without question.
It becomes a little more complicated in our case, because it seems that our intelligence has outgrown our instincts thus it is our intelligence that mostly control how we see the world and respond to it.I find that it isn't as "complicated" as we would like to think it is. That we are still rule by many of our instincts to more of a degree than we like to admit.Therefore moral values isnt going to pop up on its own in our case, we need values coming from outside.
So it isn`t just look at the animal kingdom and learn, their way of maintaing a social order isnt like our own.Atheists and agnostics are far more honest about where we get our morality from than theists are. We don't need the fear of theism to "do the right thing". We do it because it benefits the whole and thus benefits the individual as well.Thats funny, Im a practising Muslim and I should know a little more than you about what religion is about.All religion is basically the same. The lyrics maybe different, but the melody is the same.I've researched what it means to live under the Fiqh and Shari'ah systems. They are brutal and all encompassing to the point where those who are "orthodox" don't have to think or make any decisions from the time they are born to the day they die. Not even how they go to the toilet.And you state that atheists and the like are far more moral than theists.Tend to be.Do you realize that 2-3 billion people in the world are religious, what you just said now is that YOU know more than them and their way of raising their young ones as way they have been doing for milleniums is wrong.I didn't say any such thing. Being religious is no guarantee of being moral. What one society sees as being moral another wouldn't. I.E. Female circumcision, honor killings, etc.Where is your RESPECT and MORALS now then?Each is subjective to one's culture.The defence rests. You case is based on supposition.

I appreciate our recent discussion Nos482, hope others will join in soon as well."Originally posted by Delshad:
Let me further explain, animals are driven by instincts so of course they do not need any religion to maintain their social structure, they eat, sleep ,fight, make love etc without question.
It becomes a little more complicated in our case, because it seems that our intelligence has outgrown our instincts thus it is our intelligence that mostly control how we see the world and respond to it.!Nos482:I find that it isn't as "complicated" as we would like to think it is. That we are still rule by many of our instincts to more of a degree than we like to admit.Yes, and it is there our intelligence comes in to the picture, sure we have instincts but we also have the capablity to restrain our emotions for long term benefits.
For example:Someone steals your briefcase, and of course the first instinct is, get it back and fast ,or else!
However, soon different options start to emerge in our mind(if you have morals that is) ,and those overtake the command of our primary instinct and thus we behave in a intelligence way, not an instinctive."Therefore moral values isnt going to pop up on its own in our case, we need values coming from outside.
So it isn`t just look at the animal kingdom and learn, their way of maintaing a social order isnt like our own."Nos482:Atheists and agnostics are far more honest about where we get our morality from than theists are. We don't need the fear of theism to "do the right thing". We do it because it benefits the whole and thus benefits the individual as well.I think you have missed the point, you dont learn to behave with moral dignity on your own.
They are taught and learned, directly or indirectly from our surrounding.
It is irrelevant if you learn them in the Quran, the Bible or the Torah or in the classroom, or at home, it is the same.
And I think you have to abandon the idea that theists do the "right" thing because of fear, not intentions.
What is written is to make things easier for us in this life and they are very simple and most people use them because they benefit their lives, just as you use them or anyone else for that matter.Thats funny, Im a practising Muslim and I should know a little more than you about what religion is about.Nos482:All religion is basically the same. The lyrics maybe different, but the melody is the same.Lets continue reading and find out shall we Nos482:I've researched what it means to live under the Fiqh and Shari'ah systems. They are brutal and all encompassing to the point where those who are "orthodox" don't have to think or make any decisions from the time they are born to the day they die. Not even how they go to the toilet.You are exaggerating to the point of comedy.
Dont you know that you aren`t forced to be religious.
You are religious by your own choise and it is once again your choise to implement whatever you find usefull.
Shariah on the other hand is a must but its the same with every national law that exists(Us Law etc etc).
I dont find the relevance in your statement."Do you realize that 2-3 billion people in the world are religious, what you just said now is that YOU know more than them and their way of raising their young ones as way they have been doing for milleniums is wrong."Nos482:I didn't say any such thing. Being religious is no guarantee of being moral. What one society sees as being moral another wouldn't. I.E. Female circumcision, honor killings, etc.Of course, I agree, being religious is no guarantee of being moral, just like being unreligious is no guarantee for being moral.
But I should advice you to continue your "research", female circumsisions and honor killing has NOTHING to do with religion whatsoever, it was practised before Islam and is practised after as well, and I really hope that not every Atheist shares your views views of ignorance about religious matters."The defence rests ."Nos482:You case is based on supposition.The same ol comment time and time again, neglecting facts and prefering ignorance.Sincerely Delshad

Originally posted by Delshad:Yes, and it is there our intelligence comes in to the picture, sure we have instincts but we also have the capablity to restrain our emotions for long term benefits.Emotions? who is talking about emotions?[/b]For example:Someone steals your briefcase, and of course the first instinct is, get it back and fast ,or else!
However, soon different options start to emerge in our mind(if you have morals that is) ,and those overtake the command of our primary instinct and thus we behave in a intelligence way, not an instinctive.[/b]Everyone has morals. The problem comes when they are either positive or negative. I think you have missed the point, you dont learn to behave with moral dignity on your own.Why not? Someone had to start them They are taught and learned, directly or indirectly from our surrounding.
It is irrelevant if you learn them in the Quran, the Bible or the Torah or in the classroom, or at home, it is the same.
And I think you have to abandon the idea that theists do the "right" thing because of fear, not intentions.Sadly, most theists do it out of fear of being punished and in the case of Christians of going to hell. They even try to "save" those of us who don't believe as they do because they believe that they will be rewarded.You are exaggerating to the point of comedy.Actually I wish that I were, but this is the truth. The Jews are just as bad in this regard as well. Did you know that it is illegal to switch on or off a circuit in Israel on the sabbath because it is concidered to be starting a fire and thus work. They've even invented special switches which don't actually break a circuit so that they can use things like the phone and turn "on and off" electric lights.Dont you know that you aren`t forced to be religious.Tell that to the Taliban when they were in charge of Afghanistan, or in Iran.You are religious by your own choise and it is once again your choise to implement whatever you find usefull.No, that isn't true. Throughout history religion has been imposed more than it has been voluntary.Shariah on the other hand is a must but its the same with every national law that exists(Us Law etc etc).
I dont find the relevance in your statement.Have you seen those fundamentistic Islamic countries where it is imposed?Of course, I agree, being religious is no guarantee of being moral, just like being unreligious is no guarantee for being moral.A non-religious person is more likely to be moral because they have everything to lose whereas a religious person has nothing to lose. This is our only life, as far as we know, and most of us aren't too likely to risk it. You, on the other hand, have the promise of an afterlife and all you have to do is profess your belief and obedience.But I should advice you to continue your "research", female circumsisions and honor killing has NOTHING to do with religion whatsoever, it was practised before Islam and is practised after as well, and I really hope that not every Atheist shares your views views of ignorance about religious matters.Like much of Christianity believers of any religion will incorporate older traditions into their belief system. The vast majority of Christian rites and rituals aren't Christian at all, but pagan. Tell most Christians this and they will think that you're nuts.The same ol comment time and time again, neglecting facts and prefering ignorance.You shouldn't project.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-17-2002]

Nos482Your replies concerning the relevance of moral codes in society and about the nature of the human being has run out of steam.
Everything I have stated concerning this issue has been either over-skipped by you or given an slippery reply (as if you were trying to skip the issue at hand).
But however I do feel that we have come to equal terms about them in some aspects and Im happy for that.Concerning the religious matters however, your way of just writing that( Ohh, I really wished it were so but it isnt )is irrelevant.
Sure, a lot terrible is happening in the world in the name of religion, but religion is not responsible for that, it is each of those inviduals responsibility because it is their own decision that made them to use religion as a cover for, oppression, terrorism, etc.
Just as it wasnt science`s responsiblity when Hitler decided to execute all those Jews because he thought he had been given the right to do so according to his scientists, or when the Nuclear Bombs were dropped on Japan in the name of preserving democracy.
Or when Stalin killed all those people in the name of communism.
Do you see where I am getting at?Sincerely Delshad

[QUOTE][B]Sadly, most theists do it out of fear of being punished and in the case of Christians of going to hell. They even try to "save" those of us who don't believe as they do because they believe that they will be rewarded.[/QUOTE][/B][QUOTE][B]A non-religious person is more likely to be moral because they have everything to lose whereas a religious person has nothing to lose. This is our only life, as far as we know, and most of us aren't too likely to risk it. [/QUOTE][/B]Ok, so Christians are morally inferior because they supposedly do or do not do things for fear of being punished...however a nontheist is more moral because they are more afraid of than the Christians are of punishment?

Originally posted by gene90:Ok, so Christians are morally inferior because they supposedly do or do not do things for fear of being punished...however a nontheist is more moral because they are more afraid of than the Christians are of punishment?Afraid of what?

Originally posted by Delshad:Your replies concerning the relevance of moral codes in society and about the nature of the human being has run out of steam.
Everything I have stated concerning this issue has been either over-skipped by you or given an slippery reply (as if you were trying to skip the issue at hand).Morality is subjective.Concerning the religious matters however, your way of just writing that( Ohh, I really wished it were so but it isnt )is irrelevant.
Sure, a lot terrible is happening in the world in the name of religion, but religion is not responsible for that, it is each of those inviduals responsibility because it is their own decision that made them to use religion as a cover for, oppression, terrorism, etc.A religion is nothing without those who believe in it. They all create god in their own image.Just as it wasnt science`s responsiblity when Hitler decided to execute all those Jews because he thought he had been given the right to do so according to his scientists,Hitler was a Christian and it was his religious beliefs which he believed gave him the right.The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. [original italics]

​

For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will. Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the other.

​

[...]

​

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. [original italics]

​

-- Adolf Hitler, from "Mein Kampf",
translation by Ralph Mannheim. or when the Nuclear Bombs were dropped on Japan in the name of preserving democracy.I believe that this was a cowardly act as well.Or when Stalin killed all those people in the name of communism.
Do you see where I am getting at?Stalin had been influenced by the Church. He had been a seminary student. BTW, it was in the name of Stalinism.

[QUOTE][B]Afraid of what?[/QUOTE][/B]Punishment in various forms, and ultimately, execution. After all, this is what you wrote: [QUOTE][B]A non-religious person is more likely to be moral because they have everything to lose whereas a religious person has nothing to lose. This is our only life, as far as we know, and most of us aren't too likely to risk it.[/QUOTE][/B]Basically it looks like you are attacking Christians for behaving out of fear and then suggest nontheists behave for fear of earthly punishment. I'm not sure I agree with either but from your apparent perspective they seem pretty much the same.

[QUOTE][B]I believe that this was a cowardly act as well.[/QUOTE][/B]I think it was absolutely necessary. When the war is over, the fleet is rebuilt, and the draft is ended it's quite easy to gloss over certain things. Anyway, this is the sort of thing that happens when you mix military targets with civilian population centers.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-17-2002]