Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The difference between a human and a rock
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 44 of 102 (539179)
12-13-2009 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Son Goku
12-13-2009 1:49 PM


Yes that's right...thus the word "really" in the line: "Then if people died we wouldn't care, and then we really could have survival of the fittest." In other words, the ones who survived would be the ones who killed all the other ones, get it?
So now I am trying to get a plausible explanation for how these 'emotions" could have such a survival advantage over raw brutishness, over good looks, over cunning trickery, over a better coat of fur, over bigger pectoral muscles to kick other sexual competitors asses, and a whole host of other traits to select for.
Of course I am fully aware that all your side has to offer on this front are some entertaining allegory, but I just wanted to hear what some of you might come up with.
Heck modulous even suggested that sexual trickery wouldn't be as good of a long term strategy as honesty and morality because you would get a reputation as being a womanizer or deadbeat dad. Forgive me, but that one really gave me a good little chuckle.
Not too impressed so far other than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Son Goku, posted 12-13-2009 1:49 PM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by hooah212002, posted 12-13-2009 2:33 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 47 by Iblis, posted 12-13-2009 2:49 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2009 2:50 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 50 of 102 (539191)
12-13-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Modulous
12-13-2009 10:58 AM


Modulous
I especially enjoy reading your replies, as they always are chock full of interesting content-but forgive me if I don't always do justice to them in responding fully (yours take more time).
I think one should be weary about using evolutionary behavioral social science to make conclusions about human traits origins. When one starts to say that any particular trait amongst humans would be the deciding factor for who reproduces more, I feel this is on pretty shaky ground. Take one example, beauty, which evolutionary behaviorists love to make many claims about.
Beauty holds virtually no role whatsoever in determining who reproduces the most, for a whole host of reasons which I think are pretty obvious.
First, everyone sees beauty differently, not only from person to person, but from population to population (studies which attempt to show otherwise are frankly bullshit).
Secondly, for most of mankind's existence, people have not had the luxury of choosing which partner looks best to mate with. It is almost always other factors, such as one's family status, arrangement from the family, proximity of location, who was drunk at which time or what have you. Heck in most cultures in history, the couples usually never even saw each other before they married.
Third, ugly people and beautiful people exist in equal ratios on this planet.
Fourth, beauty doesn't really confer which person has the best genes or best prospects for producing a healthy child. Beautiful people have as many diseases as ugly ones.
Fifth, almost every sexual union has a whole host of causes, and trying to single out individual reasons as having a consistently higher selective advantage when choices are being made about the sex partner is really impractical.
Sixth, humans have only been on this earth in their present form for about 100,000 years or so, that's not much time to make a lot of evolutionary change if one were really going to do it the Darwinian way.
So when you start talking about womanizers and deadbeat dad's and high social statuses I really think you have a pretty hard case to make for this causing any of the mental traits we see in humans.
If one were to choose one element as the most important in deciding who reproduces and who doesn't I think the overwhelming favorite would be pure blind luck, with perhaps proximity to a pint of Guiness as second.
You can disagree with this all you want, but no science has proven this, and frankly its just too easy to make up any story one wants to say why it would have been selected for. If some population had people in it with green toes, sure enough some evolutionist would create a story about how green toes look like vegetables, and thus might have originally attracted men who were foraging on the ground for food.
Try it some time, just make up any trait you want, and then see how long it takes to come up with an explanation that sounds just like these evolutionary fireside tales. It's pretty easy.
It never ends.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 12-13-2009 10:58 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Modulous, posted 12-13-2009 4:17 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 51 of 102 (539192)
12-13-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Adequate
12-13-2009 2:50 PM


Dr.A, one thing I can absolutely guarantee you beyond a shadow of a doubt is that I get laid a whole heck of a lot more than you do...
So your theory has just been blow out of the water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2009 2:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2009 3:52 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 58 of 102 (539233)
12-14-2009 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Coyote
12-14-2009 1:44 AM


Re: Returning to the OP
I agree with Admin.
What I am actually suggesting is that morality is perhaps one of the best pieces of empirical evidence for a supernatural being we are ever going to get. Since we are unlikely to get a burning bush talking to us...because it appears that is not really how this supernatural force interacts with the world for the most part.
I believe all humans posses an appreciation for life, all life, which differs from its appreciation for non-life. Many here have explained at as simply a better strategy to survive, but I think that explanation lacks.
We have evidence of some of the earliest men involved in tribal or ritual acts, as well as worshiping some type of God. Now since we know that modern man has only existed for say 100,000 years, and we know that evidence of religious beliefs dates back at least 50,000 years ago, that means during that brief 50,000 year period, when the populations of man were very very small, that this sophisticated type of neural transformation could have occurred randomly. I don't think that is a very believable argument. But there's more.
AND HERE IS WHERE IT GETS MORE INTERESTING I FEEL, SO PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.
We are said to have acquired all of these types of mindsets because it held some type of selective advantage for our survival. That it just might have had some small advantage if you co-operated, maybe you would get better co-operation from others which might improve your chances in a pack, or some other link. However tenuous, lets for the moment accept that ok, maybe it could have some small small advantage. And we say this for all of our other traits as well. All the other things that make us human also arose in the same way, our love for music, for playing baseball, for watching movies, these traits are all part of the big picture which helps some particular alleles survive better than others (lets also overlook for now that we can't seem to identify these alleles). But let's carry on.
So all of these things, love, art, baseball games, empathy for others, these each have their own small part to play in deciding which individuals had the better chance of surviving and passing on their genes. Now from these tenuous proposals, we are now required to make an even bigger leap of faith-perhaps the biggest leap of all.
Not only has empathy (morality) for others become one of the factors for our survival, it now leap frogs over all other factors of our survival chances, by basically becoming the NUMBER ONE factor for our survival, based on the importance it hs taken in our frame of reference!
If empathy for others was just another of the many survival qualities we have accidentally obtained (as was selected for), just the same as our love of sports, and music and so on, then how come when we miss a baseball game, or don't listen to music, we only perhaps feel bored (boredom, another genetic mistake that was selected for?). But if we were to kill someone, or commit some other immoral act it could psychology destroy people for the rest of their lives. Likewise, the same thing can happen when we lose a loved one. In fact it has risen to such a high level of priority in our existence that it is the worst crime we can ever commit, and our feelings of love and empathy are the single strongest emotions we possess as human beings!
We won't feel guilty for very long if we miss a baseball game or an evening of Bingo, but when we violate our internal ethics? We won't be heartbroken over skipping a meal of spaghetti, but if our best friend dies? We will work our whole lives, and fight with our lives to protect our loved ones (this is a survival strategy?). This does not fit at all with the minor role we are claiming it has as one of the many survival features we have acquired. If just surviving was all it is about, getting skin made of armor would be infinitely more useful than feeling guilt or dying to save a loved one.
So I am not claiming that people of no faith would also have no morality, quite the opposite (how did you all get this so wrong?). I am claiming that morality is obviously extremely important (the most important aspect) of our entire being. So important that it trumps every other emotion we have in our lives. So of course atheists will have this. Its not something that is only given to people of faith.
So when I pose the question, why isn't smashing a rock any different than smashing out a life, the answer is blaring right back at us. Because our love and our empathy are what we are as human beings. Its not just another one of the survival techniques which could be discarded as easily as we could discard our hair-it IS what we are.
If you want evidence of a supernatural being, I don't know what more you could ask for.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Coyote, posted 12-14-2009 1:44 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Modulous, posted 12-14-2009 9:29 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2009 12:12 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 62 by Peepul, posted 12-14-2009 12:59 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 59 of 102 (539238)
12-14-2009 8:42 AM


Eyes Wide Open
Its kind of funny, all of the scientist demanding they need empirical evidence.
Well, if God was a Christian god, and he said, "Well, I made you the king of all animals, I made love and empathy for others the single most important emotion you will ever experience, I wrote a book, but that still didn't convince you so I sent down my only son to tell you as clear as anyone can speak in 20 different languages (a lot of which I can't even speak myself), but then you went and killed him, so I then wrote another book, AND I made it the best selling book of all times and I have posted my picture all over town for everyone to see. Look, this house up here is only so big, if you STILL weren't paying attention, don't go blaming me, I can't be taking in the ones who slept through the entire class too can I? I thought one of the tools I gave you to work with was intelligence, geez!"

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 63 of 102 (539261)
12-14-2009 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Modulous
12-14-2009 9:29 AM


Re: Explaining the evil that does exist
I think what you have just asked is are we FORCED to be moral, and to that of course the answer is no. That is sort of the point isn't it, we have a choice to act or not act upon it, with guilt being the consequence is we ignore it. Why don't we have guilt if we don't go to watch a watch a baseball game, or play music?
And can we discard our feelings of love if it makes it easier to survive? If your wife or best friend dies, wouldn't it be much better for your survival to just ignore it, because its already over anyway, and there is nothing you can do about it.
And don't people go (willing) into a war to fight and die over principles of love for family or country knowing that it may very well kill them? Our feelings of love and morality are feelings we can never escape from-unless of course we choose to become immoral (which according to you we shouldn't ever choose unless it is going to help us survive longer, which let's face it, this is not the reason people choose immorality usually.
And, your question still doesn't settle the issue of why this feelings of empathy and love are the single most important and strongest feelings that a human ever experiences. Surely if its just another element like hair or a tan, we don't need to carry such a gigantically disproportionate feeling about it. Wouldn't just a small urge be enough, sort of like when we need to scratch something? Couldn't we equate the need for morality as a selective pressure to survive (its certainly not in the top five or top ten selective pressures for what would cause our gens to be passed on more readily right?) to be about as important (or less) than our ability to have feelings on our skin which make us itch or move away from fire? I wonder why scratching doesn't exist as the single strongest emotion in our lives?
Its almost as if we are beasts, forced to struggle to live and die just like all other animals, yet with one odd difference from all other animals-we are forced to live with the consequences of our actions (forever) as if it is a struggle between good and evil...Hmm, what does this struggle between good and evil remind me of, this one crazy unique feature which separates us from all other living things on earth, this one things that seems to only apply to the king of all animals? There is something that this automatically brings to mind, but I can't quite think of what it is. The struggle between good and evil, hmm I can't quite catch it, its right at the tip of my tongue... oh wait wait, I remember now, this, this is...oh, never mind, I don't want to consider it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Modulous, posted 12-14-2009 9:29 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-14-2009 4:41 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 12-14-2009 5:25 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 68 of 102 (539307)
12-14-2009 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Briterican
12-14-2009 6:21 PM


Re: Rocks and chickens
I understand, you don't feel anything about a chicken, and won't mind what happens to it. But if you have to grab the chicken, and twist its neck to break it, and listen to it, will that bother you? What if it was a cow instead of a chicken, and you needed to hit it in the head with a hammer to kill it-feel anything? A horse?
The horse should be the same as smashing a rock to you, if this is all just about your own ability to pass on your genes.
Buddhists feel remorse for all things they have to kill.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Briterican, posted 12-14-2009 6:21 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Iblis, posted 12-15-2009 12:25 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 79 by Briterican, posted 12-15-2009 1:29 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 69 of 102 (539309)
12-14-2009 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Modulous
12-14-2009 5:25 PM


Re: Explaining the evil that does exist
But why go to war? To protect the family or territory from invasion? But if we all love one another, then why would we need to protect ourselves against those that also love us? The physical theory has the start of an explanation here. What about the supernatural one where we are all moral beings?
I thought the physical didn't explain why we would go to war, because the physical theory has taught us that by killing others we are making ourselves less safe. i thought that was how the whole concept of morality got into our population, because we gained some mutations which made us realize that not killing others was to our advantage?
You mean we also got another mutation which which made us realize that going to war was good for our survival? gee, I hope there are no other contradictory mutations we have to select for with natural selection, because now we are starting to run out of time.
If my survival depended on it, I'd either ignore it or die. It's quite simple. I make no claims that the physical theory would give us an optimal solution.
I am not asking for an optimal solution from your theory, how about even a decent one. Guilt and mourning serve absolutely no purpose as a means of propagating our gene pool. The events have already happened. How is feeling guilt about one situation supposed to improve my genes chances of survival for the next situation, which will never have the same circumstances twice? I am going to feel guilty when I disappoint someone, the same as I will feel guilty when I murder someone? This is somehow advantageous to my survival?
We already know that guilt and stress actually lead to premature destruction of our body not increased survival.
I see no evidence that suggests that we are subconsciously aware of a great struggle between good and evil that continues for eternity or whatever
You see no evidence that we are subconsciously aware of a great struggle between good and evil that continues for eternity? How about a conscious awareness of this? Just look around. Have you ever read any classic books. Watched any movies? Gone to a church? Heard of the concept of religion? Heard of Dante?
Our feelings of love and morality are feelings we can never escape from-unless of course we choose to become immoral
That's right, the morality exists within all of us, we can't choose to have morality, we can only choose to abandon it. If we never had morality to begin with, and did something evil it wouldn't really be an issue, because we would be completely unaware that there was anything even wrong with it. But because we have morality, we are aware when we are choosing to abandon it. This is the struggle of mankind-we know when we have done something wrong, and it is up to all of us to decide if we want to do something even when we know it is wrong.
According to you, we wouldn't be able to make a choice of right and wrong, but instead would only be able to choose between what will make me survive longer and what won't. If something will make me survive longer on average, that is automatically the choice I will make.
And once again, why do you think it is that love and empathy hold such a high priority for our existence, which is completely disproportionate with any selective advantage your theory proposes it may or may not incur?
And no, my supernatural theory doesn't say that we love each other and sometimes decide not to, it says that we know the difference between right and wrong, and sometimes choose to ignore it. Something other animals can't do, because they don't have a conscience.
Oh wait, a conscience, what is that doing here..that is not going to help one allele survive longer too now is it? So many new traits to get random mutations and then select for, and so little time....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 12-14-2009 5:25 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Coyote, posted 12-15-2009 12:13 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 78 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2009 11:51 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 12-15-2009 5:57 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 72 of 102 (539321)
12-15-2009 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Coyote
12-15-2009 12:13 AM


Re: Explaining the evil that does exist
To you the only thing the meaningful to reply to you would be to accept everything you say as valid no matter how illogical.
Now you are asking me to accept that evolution couldn't happen at a rate faster than the Darwinian model proposes because some creationists have proposed that it happened at a rate even faster than that. At some point one just has to accept that you are stuck on whatever ideology you are going to be stuck on, and dam the logic.
I have even given you some empirical evidence, and you have no empirical evidence, and yet....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Coyote, posted 12-15-2009 12:13 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Granny Magda, posted 12-15-2009 4:00 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 75 by RickJB, posted 12-15-2009 4:21 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 76 by Coyote, posted 12-15-2009 5:20 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 77 by Peepul, posted 12-15-2009 6:59 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 80 of 102 (539383)
12-15-2009 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Briterican
12-15-2009 1:29 PM


Re: We invented morality
And are you going to try to tell me that in Dawkin's fantasies that he provides the same level of empirical evidence that you demand from the other side?
In fact can anyone on your side provide empirical evidence that morality gave a selective advantage over the immoral which would have directly resulted in increased offspring? *Remember the level of empirical evidence you are asking the other side to provide before answering that-you are not contend with conjecture right?
I have seen some of the things your side tries to call evidence, such as the Peepul's UoB studies which suggest that people who are generous are more respected in society. Well, well, there you go, no more proof needed! And guess who was conducting these studies? Social scientists who were trying to build a case for survival of the kindest! What do you know, just look and ye shall find!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Briterican, posted 12-15-2009 1:29 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Briterican, posted 12-15-2009 2:41 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 83 by Capt Stormfield, posted 12-15-2009 5:04 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 84 by bluescat48, posted 12-15-2009 5:49 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 99 by Peepul, posted 12-18-2009 10:51 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 88 of 102 (539450)
12-16-2009 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Modulous
12-15-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Explaining the evil that does exist
Nope. The physical theory says that we are forced to make decisions about what to do using the decision making machine that is our brain. There are certain people, under certain contexts that are viewed as people we care for and protect. These are our allies. The people that cooperate with us and with whom we have cooperated. This cooperation increases our success in the world and this is can be a non zero-sum situation. By helping you, I don't necessarily hinder myself by a proportional amount.
However, there are some people who are not allied with us. They are in competition with our group for resources. This brings about a conflict.
Ah ha, so now the concept of our inherited "innateness" of morality seems to have shifted from the previous argument. Now it is no longer something that just happens to be inside us that we inherited, it is actually something which we can control. We now can make a judgment about who are our allies, and who are not and we can shift our morality to suit our situation. So now, smashing a life that is not our ally is indeed the equivalent of smashing a rock, because they are not needed for us to survive, in fact they are in conflict with us to survive, so indeed we should smash them. In a crowded world that would mean smashing a lot of people who are in competition with us for food, resources, mates, etc.. Nothing wrong with this, because as you have just explained, this is how we are wired.
"Guilt and mourning serve absolutely no purpose as a means of propagating our gene pool."
That sounds like a definite statement of fact. How did you come to know this? From the statements that follow it appears to be based on nothing but your own incredulity.
Well, now you are not playing fair at all (perhaps that is wired into your being). Everyone of the statements about evolutionary presumptions are not based on fact. They are all just based on your own levels of credulity. If you think it could have been that way, then so it must be. Not a shred of anything other than speculation supports this idea of yours. You have interpreted the facts one way, in much the same way others have interpreted them another way-no side has an edge in this respect.
It maybe then that grief is just the motivation for causing us to advertise that we really do care about family and allies and don't see them as mere resources to be exploited.
Here again, you are at odds with the theory others here have put forth, that they have an innate morality inside them for all of humanity, which is beyond reasoning. You suggesting that it is just a reasoning proposition-morality for those we need (allies), and immorality for those we don't need. Smashing that stranger vying for your job wouldn't seem a very unreasonable thing under your scenario.
Your focus on survival is telling. Behaviour that decreases survival prospects can still increase the chances of the allele that causes that behaviour to increase in frequency. Otherwise suicidal bee attacks would be mysterious.
Um, yes my focus on survival is telling. As is your focus on assuming that actions which lesson your chance for survival would somehow benefit your alleles chance for survival. And, not so oddly as it turns out, bee attacks are mysterious, as are any genetic traits for a defense mechanism which when utilized causes instant death (ie bee stings). That one requires a whole lot of story telling, which almost sound they are statements of fact- a practice you claim to be firmly against (or at least against when non-evolutionists do it).
And yet many animals are aware of social rules (right and wrong) and sometimes they follow them and sometimes they don't. That's another observable fact.
Ah, once again, these are observable facts when observed by an evolutionist. Quite convenient. When exactly did you observe an animal knowing the difference between right and wrong as a fact-as opposed to an animal just doing what it wants to do?
Heck, if that were the case, I guess we wouldn't need to scold dogs, by yelling or hitting at them when they don't do what we want, or petting them or giving them food when they do, we could simply explain what is right and what is wrong, so they could decide for themselves, instead of forcing them to react to the threat of punishment and the promise of free food.
Again, I know in any argument, people always want to be right, but please don't use the idea of "my story is more believable than your story" to claim your rightness. It is only more believable to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 12-15-2009 5:57 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Modulous, posted 12-23-2009 8:14 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 89 of 102 (539452)
12-16-2009 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Modulous
12-15-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Explaining the evil that does exist
And yet many animals are aware of social rules (right and wrong) and sometimes they follow them and sometimes they don't. That's another observable fact. So erm...you're just wrong on that account.
BTW, since you have already determined it as fact, that animals are behaving based on their knowledge of right and wrong, and not based on the threat of violence or reprisals from the stronger animals for not obeying the stronger animals desires- (like when the strongest male lion does we he wants until he is no longer strong enough to do as he wants?)- then I am now declaring that it is FACT that people are moral not because it benefits them or their alleles, but because we have this thing inside us called a conscience-which is not an evolutionary trait.
So erm, you are just plain wrong on this one.
Wow, it's easier winning arguments around here than I thought. I get to declare it! Whoopee!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 12-15-2009 5:57 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Meldinoor, posted 12-16-2009 2:58 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 12-16-2009 10:14 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 91 of 102 (539481)
12-16-2009 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Meldinoor
12-16-2009 2:58 AM


Christ, if I have to listen to another poster use a 1001 unnescceasry words to once again brag about all the empirical evidence of evolution, followed by a complete lack of empirical evidence (do you even know what that phrase means?) other than-"Well, it could have happened like this, or don't you think natural selection would favor this...yada yada" I think I will ..well, I think I will probably ignore that person-other than saying "That is not empirical evidence you moron!" That is you supposing!
At least our side has a good reason for saying why they can't show empirical evidence in the way you want, because our suggestion is that life comes from the immaterial, not the material-so of course you can't see it! What is your sides excuse? Its hard to find? t takes a long time.....
You would do a lot better to let someone else finsih their own arguments-your contributions contribute nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Meldinoor, posted 12-16-2009 2:58 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Meldinoor, posted 12-16-2009 2:43 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 96 by Otto Tellick, posted 12-17-2009 5:03 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 92 of 102 (539485)
12-16-2009 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Briterican
12-15-2009 1:29 PM


Re: We invented morality
It does appear that we are like beasts, capable of creating social strategies and navigating the various challenges that come our way.
I agree wholeheartedly with this, but would extend it a step further to say that we ARE beasts, and the only thing that separates us in these respects from other animals is a long history of intelligent debate about exactly what is right and wrong. The "moral zeitgeist" is a shifting one - what is considered moral by 16th century standards might well be considered reprehensible by today's.
Well, this contention of yours would be not be in agreement with a number of atheist posters here who have suggested that their moral capacity is not something they can rationalize or choose- to them, it is innate and unavoidable. So one of you appears to be wrong.
If you were correct, however, in that one can simply use their own standards to judge morality, based solely on what is best for them and their family-and NOT based on any abstract reality of good and bad-then certainly such an individual would consider death of another as no different from the death of a rock-as long as that individual concurred no survival benefits for that person judging correctness only based on what is good for them.
In that sense, morality, or empathy would not be an inherited trait at all, but instead we would simply have minds to make practical considerations based on what appears good for each of us (with of course no two people having the same ideas of what is good and bad).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Briterican, posted 12-15-2009 1:29 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Modulous, posted 12-16-2009 10:22 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 98 by Briterican, posted 12-17-2009 2:49 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 100 by Capt Stormfield, posted 12-18-2009 2:26 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024