Forum name change

There are specific fields of science that do, in fact, make a study of human behavior. Relevant fields include sociology, psychology, and the like. For the mechanics of how emotions (and everything else) work in the brain, there is of course neurology.Evolution is only tangentially related - it tells us how we acquired those features of behavior that we have inherited from our ancestors. The Theory of Evolution, however, does not tell us how we should act. It doesn't say whether any given behavior is ethical, whether we should feel anger or joy or depression or revulsion in any given circumstance.The Theory of Evolution is only a model that explains the diversity of life's features. Don;t get caught in the trap of trying to ascribe more to the Theory of Evolution than it actually deals with. Indirectly, I suppose, since all of the features of the human body and brain are themselves the cumulative result of mutations ofver countless generations of organisms. But your sarcastic tone is warranted, as such a claim would be extremely accurate.No, I rely on my past experiences, my capacity for logic and reason, the information I have available to me and which I consider reliable, and my empathy- and pragmatically-derived sense of ethics, with the occasional advice from others, to make the various and sundry decisions of my life. Much like everyone else. Evolution says very little about morality, Dr. As I said above, it suggests that we have inherited the traits that give rise to concepts like "morality" and "ethics" (such as the capacity for abstract thought, compassion for members of our social group, a sense of empathy, etc), but the Theory of Evolution can no more tell us if a given action is "good" or "bad" than the Theory of Gravity.I don't believe in an "innate sense of morality." In fact, I;d challenge you to prove that there is such a thing, given that so many vastly different systems of morality exist (and have existed) in the course of human experience. For example, ICANT and Buz and Peg are authoritarian in their ethical systems: they believe that what is "right" and "wrong" is explicitly what their authority (in this case the Christian God) dictates it to be, and it can change on his whim. In other words, if God says that murder is bad, then murder is bad. If God says that murder is good, then murder is good. I, on the other hand, am an empathetic pragmatist - I judge the relative "good" or "bad" of an action based on the results of that action, and am motivated primarily by my sense of empathy (my capacity for abstract thought that allows me to imagine how I would feel in another person's situation). Actually, in the course of my de-conversion, I found that there was no spot to fill, and that was part of the reason I finally gave up any pretense.As I said above, I use my previous experience and my capacity for reason and logical thought, the information I have available to me that I consider reliable, my sense of ethics which is entirely derived from my sense of empathy and the results of an action, and occasional advice from others, especially those who have had similar experiences. I don't feel a need to pray. I don't feel like there is anything "missing" from my life. Granted, I'd love a chance to see my dead relatives and friends again, and the chance to continue to exist after my own death, but I see no reason to believe that will be the case.And that is my point. You question the value of anything that explicitly denies or replaces the supernatural. I simply see no reason to think the supernatural exists at all.That's why I no longer believe in deities, and why I found there was no gap to fill, incidentally - once I no longer believed in god(s), I realized that I had been providing all of the benefits of faith to myself all along. Prayer was just a means to externalize and organize my thoughts - in other words, I was talking to myself, and that can sometimes help me work out a problem. The hope of an afterlife was just an emotional crutch, and whether it exists or doesn't, I have no evidence to guide such a decision, and so it's irrelevant as any deicision I could make would be a random guess. And so on.

This is called the No True Scotsman fallacy.But the truth is, that cartoon (while amusing) is inaccurate. The Christian majority is not complaining of persecution. However, a subset of Christians are, and they are noisy.As an example, think of the War on Christmas nonsense. There is no such thing - and considering that the vast majority of Americans (including even non-Christians like me) celebrate Christmas, it's utterly absurd to suggest that there is some group actively seeking to ban the holiday. There is simply a subset of Christians who like to exaggerate and play the martyr.

Granny Mag,Why don't we do what you want in a different thread, another time? I think the topic you raise deserves much more space, time, and dedication. Before anyone throws a "ha! look, now she's ignoring the challenge and running away" at me, know that this topic interests me and I will surely get back to it. Just not at this moment...Plus, this is the suggestions and questions forum anyway... Take a chill pill, GM. I may not be as eloquent as you in saying things, but I do know one thing: Too many words make too little sense. Thanks, Bluejay. I'm not. Its more the others who are getting worked up. I was just giving Ichiban some words from personal experience. I never made any generalized statements in my original post. I only said that the rating sys is convenient for posters who are inconsiderate and biased. Does that mean that all here are biased?? No. There are honest, considerate people. And they just proved themselves by taking the time to rate up ICANT's post.Just wanted to say, Percy is great. Thank you for all you do! Kudos to you. Even though the rating system stinks, this forum is a much better, more professional and scholarly place than a LOT others.Ichiban, I didn't intend to sound like this is a inconsiderate and biased forum. This is by far the BEST creo/evo forum I've ever visited. The people here (a good number of them) are scholars. You proably will learn a LOT (like I am) through this forum. Just don't take the ratings to heart.Are you happy, Granny?

Doc, You mean the science and emotions stuff? Or the No True Scotsman bit? Either way, that's fine. Take your time. No real Christian would say that.Succinct enough for you?Mutate and Survive

Science and emotions, is what I meant.-------And why would a real Christian not say that?

I never claimed that it tells us how to act. It can't. Fair enough, Rahvin. I don't blame you, the evolutionary theory (among others you hold on to) seems to have great success at eliminating the supernatural from your worldview. We'll see what real science has to say about this. Someday...I know we're discussing this right now in another thread, and I'll restrict my posts to that one....see you there.

Sorry Doc, I'm just yankin your chain. It's just that I see this pattern all the time;

1. Someone makes a claim about Christians,
2. a Christian denies it,
3. an example is given that proves the claim to be reasonable,
4. the Christian responds with "Oh, those people aren't real Christians...".

It's kinda annoying. You should look up the No True Scotsman fallacy. It's like a disease with Christians, really.Mutate and Survive

Quite to the contrary - the Theory of Evolution did not eliminate the supernatural from my worldview. I believed that evolution was an accurate model of reality long before I gave up Christianity and the supernatural.In fact, even if I had no explanation whatsoever for the diversity of life, or any other scientific theory, I would still not jump to the supernatural as an explanation unless reproducible, objective evidence supported the supernatural as an accurate representation of reality.That's the difference between us, it seems: you view the supernatural as a sort of default position for anything you aren't able to readily explain, or for which you feel an emotional reaction of awe or wonder.I simply follow evidence, and I'm perfectly content to say "I don't know." "Real science" is anything that is reproducible and makes verifiable, testable predictions. "Real science" has resulted in a number of theories that explain the mechanisms of reality to a demonstrable degree of accuracy, including the Theories of Evolution and Gravity.The only reason the supernatural is not accepted in science, Dr., is because you cannot test it, you cannot reproduce it, and there is absolutely no way to tell whether any claim of the supernatural is any more accurate than a completely random guess.If evidence is presented supporting the existence of the supernatural (or anything else, for that matter), in a way that is reproducible by independent parties, that makes predictions that can be tested against reality for their accuracy, and so on, thei I will immediately accept the supernatural as real. Until then...it's all just human imagination as far as I'm concerned.

Right! Who rated all my messages at a 1?! Which bastard is responsible for this travesty? Don't they realise what they've done? My member rating has dropped by 0.1 - 0.1! - What kind of monster could commit such a calumny? I'm devastated.Clearly this a malicious creationist conspiracy, and not, definitely not, just the work of one person who disagreed with what I had to say. I shall now leave this forum in a state of umbrage, never to return.Mutate and Die in a Fire, you big bunch of meanies.PS; the appalling behaviour of creationist bullies on this site proves without doubt that evolution is true. QED.

Perfectly wrong, Rahvin.I delve into things I can't explain and research them myself. Once I have accurate knowledge and observable evidence, I am content. As opposed to saying the proverbial, goddidit. I never look at something mind-boggling and think, wow, I can never explain this--this is supernatural.Where faith plays its biggest role in my life is, practical living. Christianity influences my relationships, decisions, and convictions. It influences my ethics, lifestyle, conversation, vocabulary, attire, and in general who I am and what I do with my life. It never dictates how I should view science. When it comes to science, I'm one of those people who is ample content to know that my God created a beautiful universe, acknowledge this----and proceed to answer the how, why, what, and when questions.I love this quote by Galileo: Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.To me this is inspiring. While I acknowledge that God is the author of the universe, I endeavor to discover how He managed to do it and the intricacies therein.Heh. Too bad biological science doesn't want to make friends with its maker. Yep. And I would never be so foolish to claim "God" to be scientific.
When God transcends science, I see no need for me to justify Him scientifically.... By definition, God transcends science, observation, and empiricism. He's like the wind, which you cannot see but you "know" its there because of its effects. For one to capture God in scientific empiricism is farcical, IMO. You've gotta let apples be apples, and oranges be oranges. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Great. One more "scientific, empirical" evidence for evolution in action.Why don't you go publish a paper on "How creationist bullies prove evolution through their appalling behavior"? Hey, it kills time...Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

But there are plenty of biologists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris who are willing to explain that biology and God are the best of pals. They have no problems reconciling biology and God, but what they can't reconcile is biology and creationist loonies, who, despite their pretensions, are not God. The wind does not transcend science, observation, and empiricism. This is why I don't just "know" it's there in scare quotes, I really do know that it's there.

You need to replace the batteries in your humor detector.

Well, have you seen the wind, then? I think that would strike only retards as humorous.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

No, but I've seen its effects. You know, things blowing about. Perhaps you don't find it funny. But it was fatuous to reply to it as though it was intended seriously.