twa Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Social Evolution 101 - supposing that, say, 100,000 years ago, there was a genetic strain of humans that did not have any sort of frontal lobe "morality," this particular brand of humanity would have fallen flat on its face. The creation of a society with some sort of order, some sort of regard for the well-being of other people, is evolutionarily beneficial - it will quickly result in one group of humans (the "genetically moral" ones) being in an infinitely better position than the completely self-based ones. Quite simply, there's a perfectly good scientific explanation for why we have natural morality - the ones who didn't died out. In which case is there only one version or several? And wouldn't the self based ones be more in line with the survival of the fittest concept? I can see your point in the benefit of a genetic moral code in the well being of civilization,but wouldn't that code extend to protecting say......fetuses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Social Evolution 101 - supposing that, say, 100,000 years ago, there was a genetic strain of humans that did not have any sort of frontal lobe "morality," this particular brand of humanity would have fallen flat on its face. The creation of a society with some sort of order, some sort of regard for the well-being of other people, is evolutionarily beneficial - it will quickly result in one group of humans (the "genetically moral" ones) being in an infinitely better position than the completely self-based ones. Quite simply, there's a perfectly good scientific explanation for why we have natural morality - the ones who didn't died out. That's fine if you want to make that argument, but the problem is that Chomerics is saying that religion is at fault, which is contradictory to what should have happened if there is a natural morality. There is however also a problem with your theory, and that's because its based on a herd type mentality and excludes the idea that evolutionary speaking humans may very well have been predatory creatures, and many predators are very self-based except to reproduce. What's more is that the physical features of humans are more or less similar to predators than herding animals; i.e. eyes centered forward for better depth perception useful for attacking, as well as incisor teeth. These are in opposition to herding (edit--prey--/edit) animals who's eyes are normally on each side of the head giving a wider range of view but worse depth perception, and flat front teeth for grazing. as opposed to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 In which case is there only one version or several?And wouldn't the self based ones be more in line with the survival of the fittest concept? I can see your point in the benefit of a genetic moral code in the well being of civilization,but wouldn't that code extend to protecting say......fetuses? Yeah, I'm really not buying this whole genetic morality thing, because to make that argument you really have to show that humanity is at least nominally good, but all the indications are that humanity is quite the opposite. I guess we just haven't evolved enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I'll take it. Most of the time we can't even get that right. The problem is that in accepting that, you ensure we're never going to get what we really need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Dangerous is a good word for me, head. It's a good word for any person who knows what they believe because unlike the moral relativists people like me are the ones generally willing to do whatever (or nearly whatever) is necessary to defend those beliefs. As long as your business doesn't conflict with my "interests," I wish you the best of luck in whatever you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 As long as your business doesn't conflict with my "interests," I wish you the best of luck in whatever you do. So long as your "interests" don't violate my morals/values we're fine. As soon as they do, we're going to have a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Funny, these people might disagree with you.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_Senate My guess is that there weren't very many atheists in that group. I separate myself from most of chomerics' conclusions, but I will say this. I think it's telling that there isn't even one mention of "God" or the "Creator" in the Constitution as there is in the Declaration. Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. Did he really say that? That's essentially denial of one of the provisions of the first amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 One question has been bugging me; if morality is in our DNA thus common to all then how is it that religion (which according to you is a man made phenomenon) supposedly contradicts that DNA engrained morality. Wouldn't this be like trying to see only in black and white; it seems an awful paradox that you have created because logic would say that if morality is in our DNA then naturally the religion that is thus man made should then reflect that DNA, yet you claim the opposite. No it is not a paradox at all, you just don't see the picture as I do. I mentioned the book before by Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell, Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. He tackles this question and tries to explain where religion comes from, and yes he does believe it has something to do with the way our brains are wired. Since the advent of civilization, religion has been around, it covers every culture on the face of the earth, and it has no bounds. The Egyptians, Greeks, Myans, Aztecs, Seminoles, Aborigines etc. etc. Every civilization has their own form of religion, and he examined it. Religion extends from the understanding of the real world, and the brains way of dealing with things they don't understand. Originally, there were sun gods and moon gods because we did not know what the sun was. There were gods of the water, or earth, or bounty and everything else. This stems from the inability to understand the real world around us, and humans inability to admit they do not know everything. If the sun rises, then it MUST be the sun god that causes the son to rise. This is throughout EVERY civilization on the planet. The evolution of religion goes from multiple deities, to single deities to no deities. Once humans garner the ability to understand that their own actions cause their own destiny, and that death is the end of life, then religion will be eliminated from our culture. Until that happens, it will be part of the culture, and society today is not ready to deal without reigion. So in essence, it is in fact passed down through our DNA, and it is a part of our own evolution. But it isn't that there is a specific code or gene that causes this in our brain, but instead our brain has the ability to handle sociological input and process this. Over time this manifests itself as a religion through many many years of stories and folklore. The evolution part of religion is passed through society, but our DNA allows this to happen. So I guess we Christians are more like those psychopaths who's frontal lobes are damaged, and I guess that means we're all mentally deficient. You said that not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 That's fine if you want to make that argument, but the problem is that Chomerics is saying that religion is at fault, which is contradictory to what should have happened if there is a natural morality. I wish you would have the capacity to comprehend my arguments, I am not saying RELIGION is at fault, I am saying that RELIGION is the tool used by man for perverse means, and it has been used trough out history to suppress free thought. It is a TOOL used by powerful people to control the masses. You know this, you acknowledge this, yet you still try to paint my position as something it is not. Maybe if you instead tried to COMPREHEND what I am saying, instead of ASSUMING what my position is, you would have a better grasp of where I am coming from. You still do not have that ability, maybe your barin has not evolved enough There is however also a problem with your theory, and that's because its based on a herd type mentality and excludes the idea that evolutionary speaking humans may very well have been predatory creatures, and many predators are very self-based except to reproduce. That is a BIG BIG step, and one which completely neglects nature and the fundamental aspect of community. Predatory creatures act in concert with each other. Do Lions not have a community? Tigers? Wolfs? Almost ALL predatory mammals rely on one another to survive. Why do you completely gloss over this base point? Is it because you don't want to admit that someone else may actually present an argument that makes you look at your faith in a different light? What's more is that the physical features of humans are more or less similar to predators than herding animals; i.e. eyes centered forward for better depth perception useful for attacking, as well as incisor teeth. These are in opposition to herding (edit--prey--/edit) animals who's eyes are normally on each side of the head giving a wider range of view but worse depth perception, and flat front teeth for grazing. The reason civilizations developed is because it was BENEFICIAL to the species as a whole. The nomads dies out, the people as he mentioned, which may not have had the sense of community would not survive because of evolution. He was completely spot on in his analysis, and you ignored everything he stated, everything. Try to comprehend our arguments, you don't have to believe in evolution, but you do have to at least acknowledge what we are saying, so far in these 6 pages of debating, you have failed to even acknowledge a few points other that the church was bad at one time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Since the advent of civilization, religion has been around, it covers every culture on the face of the earth, and it has no bounds. The Egyptians, Greeks, Myans, Aztecs, Seminoles, Aborigines etc. etc. Every civilization has their own form of religion, and he examined it. Amazing Chomerics, and congratulations on having surpassed all humanity in your ability to evolve more than us Neanderthal religious types. Remeber, what my momma used to say.... Once humans garner the ability to understand that their own actions cause their own destiny, and that death is the end of life, then religion will be eliminated from our culture. Until that happens, it will be part of the culture, and society today is not ready to deal without reigion. Again, we're deficient and dragging down the gene pool I guess. We should all strive to be like you then eh? Pardon me while I go evolve. You said that not me. Ah, yes but you have yet to disagree with it, which is more telling than anything about your true feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Amazing Chomerics, and congratulations on having surpassed all humanity in your ability to evolve more than us Neanderthal religious types. Remeber, what my momma used to say....Again, we're deficient and dragging down the gene pool I guess. We should all strive to be like you then eh? Pardon me while I go evolve. Ah, yes but you have yet to disagree with it, which is more telling than anything about your true feelings. Do you have anything to add to the conversation? Over the past two pages, you have done nothing by falsely paint my viewpoint, and offer nothing in terms of argument, nor acknowledge that you were indeed wrong in NUMEROUS points. . .in other words, you are no longer discussing, and just trolling. . . How Christian of you :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Do you have anything to add to the conversation? Over the past two pages, you have done nothing by falsely paint my viewpoint, and offer nothing in terms of argument, nor acknowledge that you were indeed wrong in NUMEROUS points. . .in other words, you are no longer discussing, and just trolling. . .How Christian of you :doh: Chomerics, over the past 5 pages you have done nothing but condemn religion and my faith. At every turn you have been refuffed and you have had to retreat from your claims on several counts, now you simply want to digress into another showdown where you will continue to blame the world's ills on religion (Christianity in particular). You have been insulting, and prejudicial, all while making up statistics and completely misrepresenting faith in general. We can continue this chicken and egg debate forever, but the simple fact is that your personal misgivings about Christianity have so blinded you that you are simply unable to see all the good that the faith has done, to the point that you honestly view religious people as being in some way mentally deficient than people like yourself. So, honestly forgive me if I don't feel like debating with someone who thinks that I'm mentally incapable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Nor am I going to claim that I or anyone else is morally perfect. well then according to your world of black and white, you are an immoral person and you are destroying this country. why are you ruining my country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 in the words of Karl Marx (who's given more criticism than he deserves): religion is the opiate of the masses. it has been used to keep lower classes from rebelling against the upper class and other purposes (such as an excuse for slavery) for example: in india, hinduism with the belief of reincarnation kept the "untouchables" from revolting by creating a religion in which you are born into your class and you MUST do your duty or you will reincarnate as a lower creature/caste. this kept the lower class in line to do what the upper class demanded of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 in the words of Karl Marx (who's given more criticism than he deserves): religion is the opiate of the masses. it has been used to keep lower classes from rebelling against the upper class and other purposes (such as an excuse for slavery) for example: in india, hinduism with the belief of reincarnation kept the "untouchables" from revolting by creating a religion in which you are born into your class and you MUST do your duty or you will reincarnate as a lower creature/caste. this kept the lower class in line to do what the upper class demanded of them. Would you say that this is universal of all religions? If so then we are going to have a problem. BTW, you just HAD to stir things up didn't ya?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Did he really say that? That's essentially denial of one of the provisions of the first amendment. Oh yeah, he said it, and he meant it. And what's more, his waterheaded cracker spawn is the effing president. Makes ya feel real proud, don't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Would you say that this is universal of all religions? If so then we are going to have a problem. BTW, you just HAD to stir things up didn't ya?! do you think that in the entirety of chrisitianity it has never been used as "an opiate of the masses?" think about it. the (many) crusades: the pope orders the people to go take back his holy land from the muslims. witch burning: if you accuse a person of being a witch, when they're found guilty, who gets the land they once owned? the accuser. well THAT wasn't exploited evangalists: perform magic tricks on stage and claim them to be miracles. then the townspeople donate tons of money to the evangalist who grows rich. i can think of few religions that haven't been used that way. maybe buddhism. edit: oh, and yes, i DID have to stir things up :halo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Oh yeah, he said it, and he meant it. And what's more, his waterheaded cracker spawn is the effing president. Makes ya feel real proud, don't it? Yeah, just to be clear it was George H. W. Bush that said it, not Dubba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Yeah, just to be clear it was George H. W. Bush that said it, not Dubba. notice the word "spawn" as in offspring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 do you think that in the entirety of chrisitianity it has never been used as "an opiate of the masses?"think about it. the (many) crusades: the pope orders the people to go take back his holy land from the muslims. witch burning: if you accuse a person of being a witch, when they're found guilty, who gets the land they once owned? the accuser. well THAT wasn't exploited evangalists: perform magic tricks on stage and claim them to be miracles. then the townspeople donate tons of money to the evangalist who grows rich. i can think of few religions that haven't been used that way. maybe buddhism. edit: oh, and yes, i DID have to stir things up :halo: I agree that Marx wasn't ALL wrong with what he said, my problem is when his quote is used as a blanket over all religion and not just the corrupted forms. This is why I asked if you believe that Marx's quote is universal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 notice the word "spawn" as in offspring Yeah, I got that, when Sarge first quoted it, like a billion pages ago he just put Bush, IMO its important to differentiate between the original and the sequel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I agree that Marx wasn't ALL wrong with what he said, my problem is when his quote is used as a blanket over all religion and not just the corrupted forms. This is why I asked if you believe that Marx's quote is universal. i do not believe that the PURPOSE of religion is to be the opiate of the masses, but it has certainly been used that way and will continue to be used that way by corrupt people for time to come. i think the purpose of religion is to explain the unexplained. it also helps people sleep at night knowing that when they die, it isn't over, there is either some kind of afterlife or reincarnation so death is not just nothingness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 i do not believe that the PURPOSE of religion is to be the opiate of the masses, but it has certainly been used that way and will continue to be used that way by corrupt people for time to come.i think the purpose of religion is to explain the unexplained. it also helps people sleep at night knowing that when they die, it isn't over, there is either some kind of afterlife or reincarnation so death is not just nothingness. See, for me religion (read faith) is a means of grace by which I come into closer relationship with God and as such my life is being changed and transformed and brought closer to Christian perfection, if it helps explain things then so be it; if it helps me sleep at night then fine. Problem is that my faith rarely helps me sleep at night, in fact I am constantly being challenged by my faith to wrestle with my own worst parts; and if there is an after-life then so be it, but honestly I believe God wants me to follow his ways and believe in the forgiveness his son offers and rely upon the power of the Holy Spirit even without the promise of an after-life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.